CNN Anchor to Ten Commandments Judge: ‘Our Laws Do Not Come from God’

Cuomo MooreDuring an interview Thursday with Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, also known as the “Ten Commandments judge,” CNN anchor Chris Cuomo and brother to New York State Gov. Andrew Cuomo stated that the laws of the nation do not come from God, but from man’s collective opinion.

The discussion was in regard to the constitutionality of same-sex “marriage,” and especially Moore’s efforts to stop the federal courts from imposing its opinions on the state of Alabama.

“Everybody has a right to equal protection and equal application of the law,” Moore explained. “Every person in this country and in this state has a right to marry a person of the opposite sex according to the traditional definition of marriage.”

“And why not extend it to the same sex?” Cuomo asked. “That’s clearly within the bounds of reckoning equal protection. Why not do that?”

Moore replied that such arrangements are not defined as a marriage.

“That’s not in the historical definition of marriage [and] never has been,” he stated. “It’s going to be created if it is created, which I do not believe it should be or would be.”

Cuomo said that meanings of words change with the times.

  • Connect with Christian News

“[T]imes change, definitions change,” he remarked. “We didn’t think blacks were equal to whites; that changed.”

“I believe that’s a matter of law,” Moore said, “because our rights contained in the Bill of Rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God.

Cuomo replied sharply.

“Our laws do not come from God, your honor, and you know that,” he stated. “They come from man.”

Moore then spoke about the Declaration of Independence and how it is written into the code as being “organic law.”

“Our laws do not come from God,” Cuomo repeated. “That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”

Moore began quoting from the Declaration of Independence and it’s notation that mankind’s rights come from God.

“It’s not a matter of faith, sir. It’s a matter of organic law, which states, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ and the only role of government is stated in the next sentence, [which] is to secure those rights for us,” he explained.

During the discussion, the two tussled back and forth about Moore’s stance against a recent federal court ruling that declared Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Act as being unconstitutional. Moore has vowed to defend the state constitution and has ordered probate judges throughout the state not to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses.

“I would suggest that your refusal goes to what you believe marriage is about, and not just to the law,” Cuomo posited. “This is just like the Ten Commandments situation. You were told by the federal courts, remove the Ten Commandments from the public square. You didn’t want to, and you wound up losing your job because of it.”

“It’s not about my feelings, it’s about the law,” Moore replied. “And my law, Alabama law, states that I’m chief administrative officer of the judicial system and I must act when the jurisdiction of the probate courts is interfered with by one lone judge who has no power or authority to tell them how to interpret the federal Constitution.”

“It’s about discrimination,” Cuomo said.

“It’s about sexual preference overcoming an institution which has existed in our state, in our United States, for centuries,” Moore replied.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Lemmy Caution

    Everyone knows our laws come from Zeus. Geez.

  • Crono478

    “Meanings of words change with time” is the summary of Cuomo’s argument in why we should allow gay marriage. He supports the words of men.

    In contrast, Isaiah 40:8 says:

    “The grass withers, the flower fades,
    But the word of our God stands forever.”

    Which words will we trust in? Man’s or God’s?

    • Paul Hiett

      Feel free to trust in the words of your God, but you still have to obey the laws of this country.

      • Crono478

        Yes only exception is if the laws of the country goes against God’s laws.

        • Paul Hiett

          No, there are no exceptions. Religious law will never and should never trump the laws of this nation. We were not founded as a Christian nation (read the Treaty of Tripoli if you think otherwise).

          You only support this judge because he is of the same faith. You’d be screaming bloody murder if it was an atheist judge refusing to allow Christian couples to marry on the grounds he hates religion. Or, you’d be screaming for his head if he was Muslim and trying to force women to cover up in his room.

          • Gary

            Nobody is refusing marriage to anyone. Why don’t you understand that?

          • Paul Hiett

            You just completely missed the point.

          • Gary

            I rarely miss the point. Marriage is right now, available to heterosexuals, and homosexuals. But restricting marriage to one man and one woman won’t allow you and your friends to do as you please, and that is why you want the rules to change.

          • James Grimes

            Gary, the depraved are never happy with the expectation of moral behavior. They will choose immorality every time.

          • Spoob

            The depraved, is this your new and improved word du jour? Are we no longer The Useless?

          • Fundisi

            No he did not miss the point. Gays may marry under our Constitution, I will defend their right to marry, they may marry anyone of the opposite gender they desire, because that and only that is marriage.

          • dark477

            marriage is whatever we define ti as and now be define it as a union between two people.

          • Fundisi

            It is not now nor will it ever be marriage, it is a perversion of marriage, a godless liberal redefinition of marriage and God will not honor it, all that pretend there is a marriage with people of the same gender and all who counsel towards and approve of it will remain under God’s condemnation.

          • dark477

            it doesn’t matter what you think your god will honor. if it’s recognized as a legally valid union then it’s a real marriage.

          • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

            Ahhh, nope. Guess again. Just because you use activist judges and lawyers to push a perversion will NEVER make that perversion right. Thanks for trying tho. NEXT!

          • dark477

            give it time bigot. they only thing that makes something normal is time

          • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

            And you have the nerve to call me a bigot just because I disagree with you. Well, guess what dipshit, because you disagree with me that also makes you an intolerant bigot. And no “time” does not change anything. People make changes asshat. Stupid f’ing queer. As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. Anymore queer “sound bites” you want to throw around………………..bigot?

          • dark477

            piss off scum I thunk you’re late for a cross burning

          • TBW

            For a moment there I thought dark477 was speaking to the ghost of DEMOCRAT Senator Byrd…

          • dark477

            It’s always funny how you guys seem to think you’re the downtrodden minority in this fight.

          • TBW

            dark477, “you guys”? Really? That generalization is not very PC of you. You have no idea whether I am a guy or girl or something in between.

            The only “downtrodden minority in the fight” are the black and latin communities that DemocRats use as fodder and refuse to advance their socialist agenda. Since The Kenyan has been bespoiling and degrading the White House, these poor folks have increased in suffering a dozen fold.

            The only minority in this fight are the few vocal and hysterical ninnies that push your commie agenda. Conservatives will continue fighting to protect those people that are too weak to fight for themselves. Conservatives will fight to help lift up the blacks and latins that the DemocRats have ground in the mud with the heels of their commie boots…

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Doesn’t matter if it’s right or not. It’s legal. That’s all we care about.

          • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

            It figures…..doesn’t matter to the queers if what they are doing is right or wrong….just AS LONG as they GET what they want. Stupid intolerant bigoted windbags. Queers aren’t worth the powder it would take to blow them to hell. We may be stuck with you for the moment but your day is fast approaching. Nothing you can do about but whine, piss, moan and groan.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And then what’s going to happen?

          • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

            I don’t know………you tell me. Queers have it all figured out. I’m sure that either they or their supporters know. Maybe you can ask them. I hear even the queer supporters are in on the top goings on.

          • Taussig

            you seem oppressed by “gays”? talk about whining

          • Fundisi

            NO it is NOT! It is a pretense, a vile, despicable high jacking of real marriage.

          • dark477

            If it’s legal then it’s marriage.

          • Taussig

            only in your opinion which, btw, nobody cares about. the legal definition of marriage is changing throughout the US…you should try getting over it

          • Fundisi

            Get over it? Every day seeing this rotten, festering, metastasizing moral/spiritual cancer of homosexuality eating away at the soul of America and I should just get over it? How can I get over watching our country being destroyed from the inside by this vile social/moral cancer? No, I can only watch in disgust and sorrow, watch you wicked people destroy this once great country and weep over what was once a shining city upon a hill, envied by every nation on earth – slowly, painfully dying. I can only pray and hold my nose as I see America rotting away and leading hundreds of millions of souls into hell and weep over what once was and what will be no more – America is in its death throes and I should get over it?

          • alphabravocharlie

            My god says it’s ok for gays to marry.

          • Fundisi

            I don’t care what Satan says.

          • alphabravocharlie

            Why dismiss my god? Isn’t the Christian god one who loves his neighbor? Didn’t he also ask his followers not to judge?

            I think Ghandi said it best, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.”

          • Paul Hiett

            And to point this out, since you clearly missed it in the article…”Moore has vowed to defend the state constitution and has ordered probate
            judges throughout the state not to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses.”

            Tell me again how no one is refusing marriage to anyone?

          • Crono478

            You really cannot remove our belief system as it is part of us. It plays the role in our daily worship. For you, your belief is that we must remove religions from our life and live based on what we see and desire.

          • Paul Hiett

            If you think I’m advocating for the removal of religion, then you really haven’t been paying attention.

            I would never suggest that religious beliefs be outlawed, or that you can’t live your life based upon the rules of your faith. I draw the line, however, when you want those rules to spill over from your religious choices in life to mine.

            You wouldn’t tolerate Sharia law telling you how to live, so why do you expect others to live by the laws of your faith?

          • Gary

            Why should the laws reflect what you believe instead of what I believe?

          • Paul Hiett

            The laws should reflect what is best for our society.

          • Gary

            According to whose opinion?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Haha, good one, Gary! There you go again, using logic with an a-theist. THAT’s gonna go over just fine. 🙂

          • Brent WhoDat Liles

            An that would be God’s laws

          • Crono478

            No, I would not tolerate Sharia law telling us how to live. That is why I would not vote any one who want to pass these laws. Again, these laws are in conflict with Bible too.

            I would vote for anyone who will uphold God’s words and vote on laws that is consistent with His words.

            As this is USA, anyone should be free to elect anyone with any faith to their government offices. Separation of Church and State were not written to keep religions out of schools and governments. They were really written to prevent USA from imposing any official religions on the citizens. We should recall the history where nations in Europe imposed religions on their citizens and prosecuted them if they followed a different religion than what was imposed on them. You can read more about this at: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2005_fall/mcconnell.htm

            This is also echoed in the First Amendment. Because of this, everyone of us have right to worship whatever religion we want to. Also, elected officials do have right to pass any laws that is consistent with their faith. This is why various criminals laws concerning various sins such as sodomy and adultery were passed. They were eventually repealed or declared unconstitutional.

            Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (Article the Third which concerns about religion, the link is http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc_large_image.php?flash=true&doc=8) encouraged “religion, morality and knowledge” to be taught in public schools. It was a common knowledge that they read Bible. That was eventually unconstitutional later on. Also, there were references to “their Creator” (which really means God of Bible) in Declaration of Independence. It is true that the Constitution made no mention to God. The nation was not found to be theocracy. It was found to be a constitutional republic and people could live out their faith as they want to, as long as citizen have their freedom of religion.

          • Fundisi

            You have been doing a really great job here, far more objective and fact based than my poor offerings. You are to be congratulated for your reasoning, which is a gift from God.

          • jmichael39

            There are two minor issues with your statement about Sharia Law.
            1) Sharia Law is not engrained in the very fabric of our founding documents. The Bible is.
            2) that being said, that is NOT an advocacy for a theocracy in our country, nor for the establishing of any denomination over another. You don’t want God’s blessings, don’t follow His ways. If you do want His blessings, then follow His ways. He’s not forcing anyone. You wanna try to make it on your own, go for it.

          • Paul Hiett

            The Bible is not engrained in the fabric of our founding…in fact, the Treaty of Tripoli clearly states this is NOT a Christian nation.

            Furthermore, one aspect of the foundation of America is freedom of religion. That means I can worship what I want, and how I want, barring any illegal practices (human sacrifice, for example). I should not be subjected to any type of religious rule, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, etc.

            You wouldn’t want to be ruled by someone’s religion (other than your own), so why would you think we should tolerate your rules?

          • jmichael39

            You’re Tripoli issue has already been refuted….come again when you have some new…like maybe 15000 documents from the Founders where 34% of them refer to some other sacred book.

          • Fundisi

            I appreciate how you stand on God’s Word and for Christ; but please remember you cannot win with Hiett, he is a most virulent, malignant cancerous person – he has sold his soul to the Devil, he is in spirit of the anti-Christ. He comes here just to hate and attack Christ and all Christians and twist the facts to support his own dreams of a Christian free America. He gets pleasure out of attacking everything your believe, it is his entertainment.

          • Paul Hiett

            Holy crap…

          • Crono478

            I would be careful with this statement. With man, it is impossible. With God, everything is impossible.

            Also, 2 Peter 3:9 comes to my mind:

            The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[a]not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

            We never know that some of people we think is impossible to be saved, will be actually saved later on. Prayers is what we need for everyone who hear God’s words.

          • Fundisi

            Okay, we are done, I take back all my compliments and positive statements in your regard. I absolutely hate false accusations, I NEVER said directly nor did I ever imply that anything was impossible with God, nor that despite this fellow being an enemy of Christ he could not one day, by God’s grace, be turned to repentance and salvation.

            Let us agree not to ever address each other directly ever again. I will not tolerate false accusations, I make enough mistakes on my own, without suffering such attacks for things I never said nor implied.

          • Crono478

            I was taken back by your tone you displayed toward Paul Hiett. That’s why I made the comment above. Also, another verse come to my mind.

            1 Peter 3:15

            “But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;”

          • Lisa

            It seems to me that Christians here have a thin skin and attack everyone who does not agree with them, whether you be a brother or sister in Christ or not. I agree that the non Christians are not lost causes because nothing is impossible with God. I think also of Ephesians 4:29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so it will give grace to those who hear.

          • Crono478

            Amen

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Great verse, Crono: the apologetics verse! I’m really good at following that one, except for the last 4 words. 🙁 God’s working on me, though.

          • Lizlovesthelord Jones

            AMEN

          • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

            Well, I’ll be damned Crono478…………you just got thru twisting God’s word. Go back and reread the Bible. You made one hell of a mess, now clean it up.

          • Crono478

            Ahh, I meant to say that there is …nothing… impossible with God. Thanks for the catch, I missed the word, “nothing” next to the word, “impossible”. I apologize about this mistake.

          • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

            And I apologize for jumping all over you. I was mean spirited. It caught me at a bad moment and I should not have let it get to me. My apologies. I am truly sorry for the outburst.

          • Crono478

            That is okay. I was actually happy that you pointed it out.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I’ve made bigger one, Crono, and that’s not counting my BC days. 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, Crono, indeed, I was one of those crummy devil-worshipping a-theists for 42 years, but saved by the Grace of God, unworthy though I was and am. On the other hand, I was not spending any time on Christian sides screaming “There is no God and I hate Him” either! So, apparently, I had not hardened my heart beyond redemption. Don’t give up on the a-theists: I was one of them! God bless you, Crono!

          • Robert Coker

            That, Fundisi, is the nature of the atheist beast, to question, question, question. If that doesn’t work, then slander and attack the messenger. God in His love for those that hate Him will give them the desire of their heart: they will spend eternity separated from God.

          • Kent Taylor

            When the laws of this country go against GODS laws, I will not go against GOD. And yes, GODS law should trump the laws of this nation. GOD created this nation, not man. GOD allowed this nation to exist. He can and will destroy it, as he has other nations throughout our existence on this planet that GOD created. It’s not religious law, it’s GODS law.

          • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal

            Tell that to the Germans of the 1930s and 40s…

          • jmichael39

            Even IF your analysis of the Treaty of Tripoli were accurate, you have to stand that document against over 15000 other documents written by our founding fathers. Over a third of them contain DIRECT quotes from the Bible. But far the most quoted source by the Founders.

            But let’s take a look at your claim about the Treaty of Tripoli. I suspect you saw someone write that once and saw the quote from the Treaty and that was good enough for you. So I won’t blame you for not knowing the full facts. Your laziness is forgivable

            Article XI of that treaty stated:

            “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

            This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause “Christian religion”; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly (“the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion”), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.

            Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation. That’s why you have to read that sentence…that PARTIAL sentence…in the context of more than 15000 other documents written by the Founding Fathers.

          • Doug Indeap

            You are right to distinguish between the treaty’s unequivocal declaration that the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion and the often stated, yet vague idea that America is a Christian nation.

          • jmichael39

            Why is it that you cannot bring yourself to quote the entire sentence…and hence not misrepresent the meaning of the statement in its context. It’s honestly sad the lengths to which people like you will go to deny the Christian origins of our nation. And why? because it makes you feel better to deny that God exists and therefore are free to create your own rules for living and not have to account to some supreme being for your behavior. You’re free to live your life in accordance with an entirely negative existential worldview. But your choice of a belief system gives you no authority to re-write the historical context of this nation’s founding. You may not like how it was founded. That’s perfectly fine. But you’re being intellectually dishonest to even remotely try to deny the principles upon which our Founders formed this country. You don’t like that most of our Founders were devout Christians. I get it. But its honestly laughable that someone who would likely consider himself a rational human being would think it rational to henpeck pieces of sentences in some vain attempt to argue an unarguable position… and deny the existence of thousands of other writings that conclusively refute your argument.

          • Doug Indeap

            You fancy you know much about me from reading that brief remark.

            While the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.

            Lest there be any doubt on this score, note that shortly after the founding, President John Adams (a founder) signed, with the unanimous consent of the Senate (comprised in large measure of founders), the Treaty of Tripoli. Actually, I didn’t undertake to quote the treaty at all, but rather simply stated the pertinent point that it makes. No need to resort to reading tea leaves to understand what it declares. Moreover, this is not an informal comment by an individual founder, but rather an official declaration of the most solemn sort by the United States
            government itself. (Rest assured that I am well aware of the entire treaty and its history. If you wish to claim that the treaty means something other than I stated, feel free to make your claim and support it, quoting whatever portions you like.)

            If you acknowledge, as I understood from your earlier comment, that the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, I am content. If you want to further claim that America nonetheless is a Christian nation, go right ahead. Some appear to attach importance to that vague formulation. Just what it means is an open question; you could offer your understanding.

          • jmichael39

            “If you acknowledge, as I understood from your earlier comment, that the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, ” – I never said that…Go back and re-read. I said that the founders had no desire to establish any denomination above another from a national level. Establishing a specific denomination as the official denomination of the country is quite different than being founded upon the principles of Christianity.

            “You fancy you know much about me from reading that brief remark.” – you deny what I said about you? Please show me where I’m wrong.

            ” care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs” – sure, let what DO they say. and what did they do, with regards to their faith and its engagement in government?

            That’s pretty easy to look up.

            –in 1777 the Continental Congress voted to spend $300K to distribute bibles throughout the 13 colonies.

            –in 1782 the United States Congress declared, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”

            –the Declaration of Independence, itself, declares that our rights are endowed to us by our Creator.

            –“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” – George Washington

            –We beseech [God] to pardon our national and other transgressions… – George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation 1789

            –The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. – John Adams

            –The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. – John Adams

            –The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. – John Adams

            READ THOSE LAST FEW AGAIN, SINCE YOU LIKE TO QUOTE ADAMS’ IN THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI AND THEN GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ THE ENTIRE SENTENCE YOU LIKE TO PARTIALLY QUOTE.

            –It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. – Patrick Henry

            –Let the children…be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. – Benjamin Rush

            –God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever. – Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial

            –Education is useless without the Bible. – Daniel Webster

            –“I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law … There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.” – Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Harvard Speech, 1829

            “This is a Christian nation” – United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892

            –“We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” – James Madison

            –Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. – Northwest Ordinance, Article 3 –

            –The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our nation, on the character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free Institutions. From no source has this author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible, I make no apology. – William McGuffy, author of McGuffy Reader which was the primary reading source for our education system for over 100 years.
            Would you like me to go on?
            As for you knowledge of the Treaty of Tripoli, I’ve already rebutted your claims about the partial sentence you’re so fond of quoting. As with everything, you would do well to understand such statements in the context of history and of those whom you’re quoting.
            As I said before, you can choose not to believe in the God that our founding fathers relied upon in their creation of this nation. THAT is the liberty of religion that our Founders had in mind. But there is no rational for denying that they DID rely upon their personal beliefs in the creating of this nation and wholeheartedly endorsed the notion that this country cannot and should not attempt to move forward without a continuing reliance upon that God.

          • Doug Indeap

            Denying that you earlier acknowledged the government of the United States is not founded on the Christian religion, you directed me to re-read your comment. In the course of discussing the meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli, you said: “But even if [the treaty’s article is] shortened and cut abruptly (“the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion”), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.” I read your acknowledgement that the statement is not untrue as an acknowledgement it is true. If you maintain that is not what you meant, I’ll not argue with you about your own meaning, but will just caution you that challenging someone to re-read your comments to discern your meaning won’t get the job done unless you speak more carefully or clearly in the first place.

            You offer a list of contextless quotations, to what end is not clear. It is plain, though, that you’ve merely latched onto some things you found on the web, offered them as good history, and presumed to lecture others about history while pretending to know more about it than you do. A dead giveaway is your offering of three well-known fake quotations attributed to Patrick Henry, James Madison, and John Quincy Adams.
            https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/fake-quotations-patrick-henry-on-religionists/
            http://www.religioustolerance.org/badquotes.htm http://candst.tripod.com/misq1.htm
            https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/fake-quotations-adams-and-the-indissoluble-bond/ The declaration you attribute to Congress in 1782 is erroneous as well. Chris Rodda does a good job setting these and other common misconceptions straight in Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line at http://www.liarsforjesus.com/)

            Back to the Treaty of Tripoli, you make much of reading the entire article rather than one part and you claim to have rebutted my claim that in the treaty the U.S. government declared that it was not founded on the Christian religion, but in fact you have not explained what difference you think is derived from reading the entire article and you have not in the least rebutted that the article declares what it declares.

        • Kent Taylor

          When the laws of this country go against GODS laws, I will obey GOD not man.

          • dark477

            then you will be arrested.

          • Crono478

            Already happened many times. Even, some Christians died because of it.

          • dark477

            don’t try to making them out to be martyrs.

          • Crono478

            Biblical accounts and history tells otherwise. It is still happening in this world. If you simply share your faith with others in other country, you can be quickly killed for that.

        • dark477

          no you have to follow all of them or leave.

          • Crono478

            Will you follow any laws that you find to be unjust? If not, will you leave your country because of it?

          • dark477

            yes but I will also try to change them legally.

          • Crono478

            Then why did you tell me to follow of them or leave when you will try to change them legally?

          • dark477

            Because you say you will just refuse to follow the laws you disagree with.

          • Crono478

            Yes if there is no way for us to avoid it. We would normally protest and try to get them changed. Would you do the same thing?

          • dark477

            no I would obey them but still try to change them.

          • Crono478

            Will it change your mind if you are asked to do heinous acts because the law would require you to? The penalty would be severe if you do not follow the law?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          No, not really. You can still go to jail for killing witches.

      • Lizlovesthelord Jones

        I WILL OBAY THE LAWS OF THE LAND IF THEY ARE IN CONTRAST WITH GOD’S WORD….I WILL NOT STAND UP FOR THINGS THAT GOD SAYS HE IS AGAINST. SO HOMOSEXUALITY IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS AND THAT IS HOW I FEEL….I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN….IF HOMOSEXUALITY IS A WAY OF LIFE AND SHOULD BE VEERED AS NATURAL…..YOU, OTHER’S, AND MYSELF WOULD NOT EXIST. LORD I WILL PRAY FOR THE DELUSIONAL MINDS OF THOSE THAT BELIEVE GAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A NORMAL WAY OF LIFE. WOW!

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          The red squiggly lines mean God wants you to rethink your spelling choices. Also, veered makes no sense in that context — I’m assuming you mean viewed. “Other’s” is possessive when I’m sure you meant to use the word others which is plural. Your last sentence should read “Lord I will pray for the delusional minds of those that believe [homosexuality] should be considered a normal way of life.” And learn to use the shift button. Your spelling and grammar prove to us that you’re ignorant — but at least it matches your ideology.

    • Lemmy Caution

      “Which words will we trust in? Man’s or God’s?”

      You said that like there is a difference. Adorable.

      • Lizlovesthelord Jones

        IT IS A DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE MAN HAS POLLUTED GOD’S LAWS AND HAS BENT THEM FOR THEIR OWN USAGE. WHEN YOU TAKE GOD’S WORD AND MAKE THEM FIT TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN AND NOT WHAT GOD SAYS….YOU GET PURE EVIL AND DO WHAT THOU WILT….SODOM AND GOMORRAH WERE SENT TO A FIREY AND BURNING GRAVE…..AND THE UNITED STATES AND THE WHOLE WORLD WILL COME TO THE SAME….

        • Lemmy Caution

          Caps Lock is the enemy of a reasonable argument.

        • M Diaz

          ahem, can you demonstrate how you are able to establish what god’s laws are? what is the criteria you use to determine god’s laws?

      • jmichael39

        Its always funny watching a person who deems himself a rationalist brush of the irrefutable evidence that God’s divine hand was in the writing of the Bible. Over 450 separate prophesies written over nearly a thousand years by nearly two dozen writers about the expected Messiah of Israel. Some of the prophesies a bit vague. But most quite clear. Such as where the Messiah would be born. Where he’d be raised. The fact that all the children of his era would be slaughtered and his family would have to hide in Egypt to escape the slaughter. How he would die and by a method of death that had not even been invented yet when the prophesy was written. That he side would be pierced and water and blood would flow. And so on and so on and so on.

        Statisticians have used conservative calculations to determine the odds of one man fulfilling just 50 of those prophesies and the odds are so unbelievable that it is a statistical impossibility that one man could fulfill them all without some supernatural involvement. And yet, you’ll sit here and read this and still not believe. I refer to people like you as having the Pharaoh-syndrome. God could appear in your living room, answer every question you submit to him and then vanish into thin air and you’d STILL not believe.

        But I’m grateful for people like you and your world of disbelief. Because it gives me a chance to post things like this for those who actually do have an open mind and who are truly intellectually honest.

        • Lemmy Caution

          “Its always funny watching a person who deems himself a rationalist brush of the irrefutable evidence that God’s divine hand was in the writing of the Bible”

          I don’t think you know what ‘evidence’ means.

          Excuse me for doubting the ‘truth’ of a book with talking animals, giants, zombies, unicorns, and dragons.

          • jmichael39

            I seem to know a bit more about what ‘evidence’ is than you do. Your lack of ever experiencing something is NOT ‘evidence’ it never happened or is impossible.

            You seem to think that the ‘evidence’ that’s possible is that which fits neatly into your five senses and into your limited mental capacity. I personally accept the fact that there are things that are possible that do NOT meet the criteria of my senses and intellect.

            But let’s take a look at your list:

            1) Talking Animals – Unless you somehow have met every animal of every species that has ever lived, you’re stuck trying to prove a negative. The absolute best you can argue is that by natural laws, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that any animal has ever spoken in a language humans could understand. Then as soon as you inject the laws of the supernatural into it, all bets are off.

            2) Giants – well, there have been archaeological digs which have found evidence of quite large humans…nephilim…existing at one time. And honestly, the measurements of the Goliath’s were merely 8-9′. We have humans nearly 8′ tall now. Is it really that unrealistic to imagine there being 9′ tall humans at one time? I guess even with archaeology, its difficult for you to accept.

            3) Zombie – ??? you’ll have to clarify. I have no idea of where you see Zombies in the Bible.

            4) Unicorns – You do realize that an unicorn merely means an animal with one horn, right? It does not infer the mythical horse with one horn. Though eighteenth century reports from southern Africa described rock drawings and eyewitness accounts of fierce, single-horned, equine-like animals. One such report describes “a single horn, directly in front, about as long as one’s arm, and at the base about as thick. . . . [It] had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but fixed only in the skin.” The elasmotherium, an extinct giant rhinoceros, provides another possibility for the unicorn’s identity. The elasmotherium’s 33-inch-long skull has a huge bony protuberance on the frontal bone consistent with the support structure for a massive horn.
            5) Dragons – As in the Book of Revelations? Seriously? You’re concerned with a vision John had and how he described that vision.
            Would you to try some more clichés? Do you seriously think you can come up with anything that we don’t have an answer for?

          • Lemmy Caution

            You missed the zombies? I mean, aside from the obvious ones like JC and Lazarus, you got Matthew 27:52-53. That’s one’s just gold.

            It’s a book of myths and fairy tales absolutely NO different from a thousand other religious books of myths and fairy tales. The mental gymnastics you have to go through to justify them to yourself are somewhere between amusing and genuinely sad.

          • jmichael39

            You honestly want to challenge the resurrection of Christ? Sweet. Everyone I meet in the atheists world is terrified to take on the Resurrection account from a rational, logical approach. They’re content to simply disbelieve. Paul, in I Corinthians 15, actually made a very special point that the Resurrection of Christ is the string that holds ALL of Christianity. Without the Resurrection of Christ, there is no Christianity. And you want to take it on? Cool. You ready?

          • Lemmy Caution

            Considering there is no evidence it occurred, I don’t see what’s to challenge. Makes about as much sense as challenging the resurrection of Odin. But hey, if you believe it and it makes you happy, that’s fantastic. Just stop using it as an excuse to impose your superstitions on others.

          • jmichael39

            Oh come on, Lemmy….you can do better than that.
            Here are some broadly accepted facts about the Resurrection account. These are facts that people from all sides of the debate about Christ accept as historically true. Take a look at them and do two things. First, if you care to, try to refute any of them as facts. I am specifically listing only those facts that are the most broadly accepted facts. So any refutation attempt would have to address all the scholarly professionals who believe these to be true. But if you feel the need to try, go ahead. We can take the time to deal with those issues. Second, provide me with the most rational explanations for all of these facts…or as many as you can explain.
            1) Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
            2) He was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
            3) Soon after His death, His disciples were discouraged, bereaved and despondent.
            4) Jesus’ tomb was found empty soon after He was buried.
            5) The disciples had some sort of experiences they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus.
            6) Due to these experiences, whatever they were, the disciples’ lives were thoroughly transformed to the point of being willing to die for this belief.
            7) The Resurrection message was the center of the preaching of the early Church.
            8) This message was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem where was Jesus was buried and died shortly before.
            9) As a result of this preaching the Church was born and grew.
            10) Sunday, the day Jesus is said to have risen, because the primary day of worship for the Church.
            11) James, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he had what he believed was an encounter with the resurrected Jesus.
            12) A few years later, Paul, who had been actively trying to persecute and kill Christians, was converted to the faith by what he believed was an encounter with the risen Jesus.
            There are other broadly accepted facts surrounding the Resurrection account. But let’s just stick with these.

          • Lemmy Caution

            “These are facts that people from all sides of the debate about Christ accept as historically true.”

            Nope. Not even close.

            This is a very broad list of ASSERTIONS. If you want to claim them as facts you will need to provide evidence.

          • jmichael39

            that’s nice of you to assert….prove it. Refute the statements. Provide some sort of evidence to refute them. Surely you can.

          • Lemmy Caution

            You don’t know how the burden of proof works do you? You are the one making the claims. A whole list of claims! It’s up to you to provide evidence to back up those claims.

            My only claim is that I see no logic, reason, or evidence to believe in supernatural nonsense.

          • jmichael39

            Actually I DO know how it works. I presented facts…you refute. Give it a shot. Simply saying they’re not facts doesn’t make them NOT FACTS. The burden in on you to refute them.
            Eye witnesses to these facts have made their statements. Refute their statements. Do you have contradictory testimony?

          • Lemmy Caution

            “Eye witnesses to these facts have made their statements.”

            Name one.

          • jmichael39

            Matthew and John…
            Paul wrote to the last statement.
            James made HIS own statement regarding his encountered with Jesus.

          • Lemmy Caution

            https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/why-scholars-doubt-the-traditional-authors-of-the-gospels/

            Nope. Not one of those is an eyewitness. Not that an eyewitness account is worth much at all. I can point you to hundreds of eyewitness accounts of aliens visiting earth. Or even Joseph Smith’s eyewitness accounts of receiving the Book Of Mormon.

            Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Bible is just one of thousands of religious texts making supernatural deity claims.

          • jmichael39

            What extraordinary claims have I made? Which of those statements I made are so extraordinary.

            But let’s look at your article. Unfortunately, while the author would like to claim that the majority of scholars doubt the authorships of the NT books, he provides no listing of such an extraordinary group of scholars. Even the author’s attack of Strobel’s book is pure vitriol lacking even an attempt to refute the material presented by Strobel.

            http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_04.htm

            The authorship of the books of the NT passes the internal and external tests for authorship. Take a read…I won’t attempt to reproduce the information presented. Yet through all your doubts about the authorship, you can’t even remotely account for the birth and growth of the church WITHOUT those facts that I’ve stated. Note, I’m not saying that those facts PROVE the resurrection. If you have some other way of explaining those facts, please do. I’ve given you the liberty to use your rational mind to come up with explanations that account for these things.

          • Lemmy Caution

            “What extraordinary claims have I made?”

            That a god exists and that 2000 years ago he sent himself as his son to earth and performed miracles and rose from the dead.

            “The authorship of the books of the NT passes the internal and external tests for authorship.”

            Hardly. They are nothing more than an anonymous collection of mythology. Not even that unique. There are thousands of religious texts making similar claims.

            “Yet through all your doubts about the authorship, you can’t even remotely account for the birth and growth of the church WITHOUT those facts that I’ve stated”

            Are you really saying that the existence of Christianity proves the claims of Christianity? No more so than the existence of Scientology proves the claims of Scientology. Or the existence of Islam proves the claims of Islam. You get the picture. The fact that Christianity started out small and grew in size is hardly unique and says nothing about it’s truth claims.

            “I’ve given you the liberty to use your rational mind to come up with explanations that account for these things.”

            My rational mind tells me that I don’t see any reason to believe in a god, I don’t see any logic in the concept of a god, and I don’t see any good evidence that supports the existence of anything even remotely supernatural.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

          • jmichael39

            “That a god exists and that 2000 years ago he sent himself as his son to earth and performed miracles and rose from the dead.” – Where did I claim that with the 12 statements of fact I presented? I presented benign and broadly accepted facts surrounding the resurrection story. Not one of them claimed anything regarding the existence of God or claimed the Resurrection as a fact. I presented them to you for you to refute as facts. Which you have not even attempted to do…and to present your own conclusion as to what would explain those facts.

            “Hardly. They are nothing more than an anonymous collection of mythology. Not even that unique. There are thousands of religious texts making similar claims.”

            Actually I’ve presented more than sufficient evidence to back up the authorship of the NT accounts. What have presented? A theory and a claim that there is somehow doubts about the authorship. Of course, when you’re referring to something that occurred 2000 years ago there will be ‘doubts’ about the veracity of that event. But as with ANY fact, you must evaluate the evidence available and determine the degree to which the evidence supports one theory of what happened vs. another theory of what happened. So far, you’ve presented NO evidence to support any alternative theory…that theory seemingly being that you think the Bible is not historic in nature, but rather myth.

            “Are you really saying that the existence of Christianity proves the claims of Christianity?”

            Once again you seem to have a false notion of what I am claiming. I am not claiming that the existence of Christianity PROVES that Jesus rose from the dead. I’m saying that the existence of Christianity, as it pertains to the realities of its birth’s historical context, is a virtual impossibility unless those who started Christianity had an honest belief that they witnessed a resurrected Jesus.

            Why would they preach about a risen Jesus in a town where He was crucified and buried? It would be far too easy for anyone else to simply point to the tomb where He was buried.

            Why would these men (and women), who would have been (and based upon what historical documentation we have, were) distraught and terrified that they, too, would be executed if anyone even thought they were followers of Jesus, dare to speak about Jesus as the Son of God and about His resurrection when surely they would have been persecuted?

            Why would a man who was directly involved in persecuting these Christians have suddenly changed his course and become one of those being persecuted even to the point of his documents execution?

            Why would the brother of Jesus, a man who grew up knowing this Jesus and who doubted Him even after He died, have suddenly changed His mind and become a follower and believer in this supposed risen Jesus?

            NONE of your contextual arguments regarding the original authors explains ANY of this. Not in the least.

            “My rational mind tells me that I don’t see any reason to believe in a god, I don’t see any logic in the concept of a god, and I don’t see any good evidence that supports the existence of anything even remotely supernatural.”
            And what exactly does ANY of that have to do with the direct points presented to you. I have not once asked you to believe in anything supernatural. I’ve not asked you to believe in God. I’ve not asked you to believe in anything. I have presented historic facts to you. You’re only attempt at refuting them is to say they didn’t happen. Yet not one shred of historic evidence contradicts the statements I’ve presented to any degree. And every bit of evidence I’ve presented supports those statements as being historically accurate.
            YOU’RE the one who keeps getting confused that I’m claiming within those statements that Christ rose from the dead or that somehow I’m claiming God exists. I’ve given you clear liberty to come up with your own explanation for those historic facts. While you assertion that they never happened seems a safe way to avoid the obvious, you’re assertion fails to explain the very existence of Christianity…which is founded upon the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. While there is no need to accept that claim, you cannot simply brush aside the very clear fact that Christianity began in the days following Christ’s death and that it was born upon the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. You’ve yet to explain that. Explain how 500+ people can feel like they could all have seen a risen Jesus. Explain how a man willing to kill people who claimed they’d seen the risen Jesus would suddenly change course and become one of them. Explain it. Give us YOUR explanation.

          • jmichael39

            I’m baffled by you.
            What’s so difficult to accept as fact?
            Did Jesus die by Roman crucifixion or not? Even secondary historical documents affirm this
            Was he buried in a tomb? a Private tomb? Do you have any evidence to refute the statements in the Bible at what happened to Jesus’ dead body after the Roman crucifixion?
            Why would you think that the disciples weren’t terrified, distraught and scared after His death?
            If Peter were preaching the resurrection days afterwards during the Pentecost, while in Jerusalem, where Jesus died and was buried, surely someone would have been able to point to a non-empty tomb.
            Five hundred plus people are said to have witnessed the risen Jesus…or whatever you want to call what they saw.
            Clearly, you can’t dispute that something happened that emboldened the disciples to not only come out from hiding but to put their lives on the line to preach about a risen Jesus.
            And that this preaching led to the birth and growth of the Christian religion.
            As for James and Paul…well, unless you can produce historical evidence that refutes the notion that James was a skeptic and that something changed his mind…and Paul was a major part of the persecution of the early church and then was, for some reason, converted to the faith….both occurring as a result of what they both state was their encounter with the risen Jesus.
            You can doubt the veracity of their testimonies…but you have yet to produce any contradictory evidence.

          • Lemmy Caution

            “What’s so difficult to accept as fact? ”

            Supernatural claims.

            “Did Jesus die by Roman crucifixion or not?”

            The only evidence of these claims is the Bible. Oral tradition passed down, edited, translated, and circulated. I’d say it’s doubtful at best.

            “Even secondary historical documents affirm this”

            Provide one.

            “Do you have any evidence to refute the statements in the Bible at what happened to Jesus’ dead body after the Roman crucifixion?”

            I have no reason to believe anything in the Bible. No more than I do the Quaran or L. Ron Hubbards book of Dianetics.

            “Five hundred plus people are said to have witnessed the risen Jesus…or whatever you want to call what they saw.”

            Thousands of people have said to have witnessed the risen Elvis.

            “Clearly, you can’t dispute that something happened that emboldened the disciples to not only come out from hiding but to put their lives on the line to preach about a risen Jesuus”

            Just like something happened that emboldened the followers of Joseph Smith to come out from hiding and put their lives on t he line to preach about the book of Mormon.

            “You can doubt the veracity of their testimonies…but you have yet to produce any contradictory evidence.”

            I don’t feel the need to. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          • jmichael39

            “Two friends of the apostle John confirm the internal evidence from John’s accounts. The historian Eusebius preserves writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (AD 130).

            The Elder [apostle John] used to say this also: “Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter … So then Mark made no mistake … for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to include any false statements among them.

            Iraneus, Bishop of Lyons in AD 180, who was a student of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (who had been a Christian for eighty-six years and was a disciple of John the Apostle), wrote

            Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews [i.e. Jews] in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure [i.e. death, which strong tradition places at the time of the Neronian persecution in 64], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His breast [this is a reference to John 13:15 and 21:20], himself produced his gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.”

            Ignatius (AD 70-110). He was Bishop of Antioch and was martyred for his faith in Christ. He knew all the apostles and was a disciple of Polycarp. Ignatius is said to have been thrown to the lions in the colosseum at Rome. He had ample material and witnesses to discover scriptural trustworthiness, and the fact that he was prepared to die for his faith, supports the reliability of the Scripture (the New Testament documents) on which his faith rested.

            Polycarp (AD 70-156) was a disciple of John and was martyred at 86 years of age because of his relentless devotion to Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. He was burned at the stake. His death demonstrated his trust in the accuracy of the Scripture as he certainly had ample contacts to know the truth.

            Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the second century AD (112 AD). His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value. The following is a full quote of the relevant cite, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome’s fire of 64 AD:

            “But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”

            Josephus (born AD 37) was a Jewish historian. He became a Pharisee at the age 19 and in A.D. 66 he was the commander of Jewish forces in Galilee. After being captured, he was attached to the Roman headquarters. In Josephus’ antiquities, there are two quotes that mention Jesus. Here is the first and smaller quote:

            “Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”

            AND, DON’T FAIL TO READ THIS ONE FROM HIM

            “Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”

            Thallus is one of the first Gentile writers who mentions Christ. In 52 A.D. he wrote attempting to give a natural explanation for the darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus. However, his writings have disappeared and we only know of them from fragments cited by other writers. One such writer is Julius Africanus, a Christian writer about 221 A.D. One very interesting passage relates to a comment from Thallus. Julius Africanus writes:

            Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun – unreasonably, as it seems to me’ (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died).”

            Pliny the Younger was Governor of Bithynia. His correspondence in 106 A.D. with the emperor Trajan included a report on proceedings against Christians. In an extended explanation to his supervisor, Pliny explained that he had been killing both men and women, boys and girls. There were so many being put to death that he wondered if he should continue killing anyone who was discovered to be a Christian, or if he should kill only certain ones. He goes on to say that he also forced them to “curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do.”

            Lucian of Samosata – From this satirist and playwright of the second century, we have two quotes from a play entitled “The Passing of Peregrinus.” The hero of the tale, Peregrinus, was a Cynic philosopher who became a Christian, rose in prominence in the Christian community, then returned to Cynicism. Lucian’s attack is not so much on Christianity, but on the person of Peregrinus who took advantage of the Christians’ simplicity and gullibility. [3] He alludes to Christ as

            “… the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult to the world … Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers … after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping the crucified sophist himself and live under his laws.” Although, Jesus isn’t mentioned by name, there is no doubt that he is referring to Jesus. No one else was ever worshipped by the Christians.

            Suetonius was a court official and annalist under Hadrian,

            Mara Bar-Sepaion sent a letter to his son Serapion mentioning the death of Christ in the same breath as that of Socrates and Pythagoras.

            The Talmud citations (Jewish writings from AD 100-500) are contested and some feel that they hold little value when it comes to the historicity of Christ. However, a worthwhile point that can be derived from the Talmud is that it provides no indication that Jesus was a mythical figure. Although the rabbinic sources may not contain clear references to Jesus – from the fact that the Talmudists concentrated on smearing Jesus’ legitimacy rather than focusing on the issue of Jesus’ existence, we may deduce that they had no grounds whatever for doubting his historical existence.

            http://www.knowwhatyoubelieve.com/believe/evidence/did_jesus_exist.htm

            DO YOU NEED ANY MORE EXTERNAL SOURCES?

          • M Diaz

            “I presented facts…”
            fact: you are a pedophile…

            see how that works? you silly twit…

          • jmichael39

            You’re a moron. You make village idiots look like geniuses.
            Keep going though. I LOVE watching you bury yourself. You’re doing a great job of embarrassing yourself.

          • M Diaz

            at least i am not a pedophile you sicko

          • M Diaz

            sorry, special pleading is against the rules and circular reasoning need not apply…want to meet unbelievers in the middle or are you just happy regurgitating tired pronouncements expecting a different result?

          • jmichael39

            Refute the statements. Show some sort of historical evidence that contradicts the statements…one by one.

          • M Diaz

            before i can refute your statement, you are responsible for qualifying them, remember you are the one making the claim, i’m still waiting for you to support them with out relying on logical fallacies like special pleading and circular reasoning…now can you meet me in the middle and speak the language we both know, the language of objective evidence? or is what you are selling something that requires a level of wishful thinking?

          • jmichael39

            You can make accusations of logical fallacies all you want, but unless you care to substantiate those accusations, well, I’m just going to have to assume there is no substance to them. oops
            As for the 12 statements I’ve made…they are fully qualified. I’m claiming they are factual historical statements. If you have some form of historical evidence that refutes the truth of them as historical truths please present it.
            Oh, and in regards to them being logical fallacies…they would only be logical fallacies if I were presenting a conclusion with regards to those statements. Which I have not.

          • M Diaz

            don’t you know there is no standard, other then wishful thinking, that can establish any and all god claims cause god claims are only ideas, and cannot be supported with observable facts, nice try, but you are still left holding an empty bag no less

          • jmichael39

            I see you still have no argument.
            Oh and btw, where do you get the notion that all truth must pass through the approval of your five senses?
            My previous statement stands. substantiate your accusations or admit there are none.

          • M Diaz

            no, it is you who has nothing to support your god claims…other then logical fallacies.

          • jmichael39

            That’s what’s hilarious about you. I haven’t made a single claim yet. You’re projecting instead of addressing the points presented.

          • M Diaz

            “I haven’t made a single claim yet.”

            i’ll slow down for you…
            you claimed that there is “irrefutable evidence that God’s divine hand was in the writing of the Bible.”

            did you not…??
            that is a claim.

            so provide for me the criteria you used to establish that claim is true.

            another claim you made was, “450 separate prophesies written over nearly a thousand years by nearly two dozen writers about the expected Messiah of Israel” and you made this claim without considering that these were self fulfilling claims within an evolving religious, tribalistic tradition.

            fact: there is no historicity of Moses…

          • jmichael39

            I thought you were engaging in the debate I was having over the resurrection. You were sounding like you were involved in that debate. If that is not what you were doing then we need to back up a bit. Is that not what you were doing?

          • Robert Coker

            jmichael39 -> Brother, i have found a common thread that holds all the scoffers arguments together: they never ever present evidence, relying strictly on their opinion as proof. Further, they always, always weave webs of verbal sophistries as if that alone is proof of the validity of their vapid contradictions.

          • jmichael39

            You’re quite right, Robert. I’m not naïve to their tactics. Denial being the greatest one.

          • M Diaz

            whatever makes you feel better about living with double standards i suppose

          • jmichael39

            aww…is Diaz offended that we know his trollish tactics?

          • M Diaz

            “they never ever present evidence, relying strictly on their opinion as proof”
            this is an interesting observation Robert.
            Being that our POV is skeptical and we offer the arguments against the CLAIMS being made. So really it isn’t up to us to present evidence, it’s up to us to question everything.
            suppose you were offered to be given a brand new Mercedes?
            All you need to do is give the person $5000 and then they will disclose the location, pink slip and keys to the car…would you question that claim? I would hope you would. I know I would, but if i were to apply your logic, I would have to come up with evidence that they are a)telling the truth or b) lying
            which doesn’t make sense in the way the real world operates

          • Robert Coker

            Thank you for proving my point that skeptics never offer any counter-evidence to support their position. The tactic of simply questioning everything is intellectually bankrupt at the best, and amounts to outright cowardice at the worst.

            Scroll to the top of the page, and you will see Lemmy Caution originated the thread with his comment. As such, the burden of proof is on those supporting his contention there is no God. Now, kindly either bring your evidence to the table or you have lost the “argument.”

          • M Diaz

            “The tactic of simply questioning everything is intellectually bankrupt at the best, and amounts to outright cowardice at the worst.”
            so you would take up the offer, you would give someone $5000 before seeing the Mercedes? you silly silly fool.

            “the burden of proof is on those supporting his contention there is no God”
            you would then have to prove to the person making the assertion there is no Mercedes

            do you normally work this hard at being dim witted?

          • Robert Coker

            Aha. We see the next tactic of the skeptic/professional doubter:attack on a personal level.

            First of all, we aren’t discussing cash and cars. So, please leave the oranges out of a discussion about apples. This is a discussion of matters spiritual and eternal, not material and temporal.

            Secondly, you have yet to make one statement to advance your assertion there is no God. You only question incessantly. I refuse to reply to further questions. I will, however, reply to evidence you present.

            And, for the record, i love you in the name of the LORD Jesus Christ.

          • M Diaz

            “First of all, we aren’t discussing cash and cars. ”

            no we are discussing the principle of proving an assertion

            “This is a discussion of matters spiritual and eternal, not material and temporal.”

            you are required to prove it if you want me to believe you…you see i am consistent when it comes to claims that are presented to me, you do realize that this: {{{“This is a discussion of matters spiritual and eternal, not material and temporal.”}}} is just an assertion that you need to prove (just like proving the claim the Mercedes exists) in order for you to expect me to take you seriously… but then again, maybe you are not interested in being taken seriously

            “Secondly, you have yet to make one statement to advance your assertion there is no God”

            well i know for a fact that you are a pedophile, so prove me wrong..and if you can’t prove me wrong then my assertion stands, you are a pedophile….
            see how that works you silly twit?

          • M Diaz

            so you can’t demonstrate how you came to the conclusion the bible is ” “irrefutable evidence that God’s divine hand was in the writing of the Bible.”
            is that right?

          • jmichael39

            That’s not hard at all…from a rational perspective.

            Jesus had to be born through a particular family line as it was prophecied in the Old Testiment. Jesus would have NO CONTROL over that. They have calculated the odds of that actually happening – 10 To the 2nd Power (1 in 10,000) Jesus would be a Descendant of David,

            Prophecy Tells US GOD Picked the City of Bethlehem for The Messiah to be Born in. Jesus would have No CONTROL over this. They calculated the odds of this – 10 to 5th Power (1 Chance in 100,000) Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.

            I could keep going on by merely addressing the more prominent prophecies which the historic Jesus had absolutely no control over and yet fulfilled completely. Prophecies such as The Place of the Messiah’s birth (Micah 5:2). , The Date of the Messiah’s birth (Daniel 9:25). Manner of birth of the Messiah (Isaiah 7:14), The Manner of death of the Messiah (Zechariah 12:10; Psalm 22:16 prophesied before the invention of crucifixion). , Piercing in side of that Messiah (Zechariah 12:10).The Details of the Burial of the Messiah(Isaiah 53:9).Executers dividing up Jesus’s clothes after he died on the cross. And so on and so on.

            Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. Twelve different classes representing some 600-university students worked out the estimates. 1 in (10 157POWER) that one man could fulfill even 48 (F O U R T Y – e i g h t ) of these Old Testament prophecies.

            JUST REMEMBER THAT JESUS FULLFILLED OVER 300! Finally, he submitted his figures for review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner, Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969
            Based upon the statistics, there is little choice to any rational human being but to do one of two things…either accept the divine inspiration of the Bible and the messianic credentials of Jesus or…as you’ll likely feel compelled to try to do…reject the historicity of those events. However, bear in mind, if you’re planning on challenging the historical accuracy of the Bible events in reference here you’ll have to do so properly. So go for it. As for me, although there are obvious reasons to doubt, to some degree, the historical accuracy of a series of documents ranging in age from 1900 years to 3000+ years, I have sufficiently studied contextual criticism, ancient languages, extra-biblical documents and such to be more than sufficiently convinced of the historical accuracy of the events surrounding the prophecies about the Messiah and their fulfillment. If you would like to take a shot at providing sufficient reason to discard the biblical accuracy of the Bible over these events, please feel free to try.

          • M Diaz

            “Jesus had to be born through a particular family line as it was prophecied in the Old Testiment.”
            ok, demonstrate HOW you came to that conclusion???
            Reason I ask is because Muslims offer the same claim.
            so HOW do you differentiate the prophecies of the bible from the prophecies of the quran?

          • jmichael39

            I have no idea what the quran says about Jesus. However, considering it was written 7 centuries after Christ, it would, under normal standards of evidence, be considered a tertiary source.

            Josephus, on the other hand, made clear how important it was for Jewish families to maintain the lineage history. So it’s not so irrelevant to consider that Jesus’ family knew theirs.

            Even the Babylonian Talmud acknowledges that Jesus belonged to the family of David. The Talmud, an ancient source preserving the oral traditions of the Pharisees, is unfriendly to Christianity. Yet on the authority of Ulla, a rabbi from the late third century, the Talmud says that the Sanhedrin took pains to give Jesus a fair trial because He was “near to the kingship”

            I understand your need to affirm the historical accuracy of the Bible. But there is little question to scholars that it IS an historical document. It should be taken as such and is often used to validate other historical documents…as those documents are used to valid it.

          • M Diaz

            “I have no idea what the quran says about Jesus.”

            i’ll slow down a few more notches for you…

            it’s NOT that they say ANYTHING about Jesus, it’s that they claim the quran has prophesies that were fulfilled…so

            WHY is prophesy the standard you use when the Muslims use that very same standard…what sets your religious beliefs a part?

          • M Diaz

            “But there is little question to scholars that it IS an historical document.”

            hmmm, an overwhelming majority of modern biblical scholars agree that the Pentateuch was written 538-332 BCE as a etiological myth

          • jmichael39

            yeah, yeah. I’ve heard this one before too. Funny how you take the word of a critic without question, but question the words of those who say what you don’t want to hear. I guess its just subjective filtering. Anyway.

            You’re referring to the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. “The Graf-Wellhausen explanation of the origin of the Pentateuch has been thrust consistently into the faces of Christians. Liberal scholars teach that the Pentateuch was compiled from four original “source documents”—designated as J, E, D, and P. These four documents supposedly were written at different times by different authors, and eventually were compiled into the Pentateuch by a redactor (editor). The J, or Jehovahist, document (usually known as the Yahwehist document) supposedly was written around 850 B.C., and was characterized by its use of the divine name Yahweh. Elohim is the divine name that identifies the E, or Elohist, document, purportedly written around 750 B.C. The D, or Deuteronomist, document contained most of the book of Deuteronomy and was supposed to have been written around 620 B.C. The last section to be written was the P, or Priestly, document, which would have contained most of the priestly laws, and allegedly was written around 500 B.C. We are told these documents were then redacted (edited) into one work about 300 years later in 200 B.C.” (Morris, 1976, p. 23; McDowell, 1999, p. 406).
            This is not a new theory. J.W. McGarvey this argument more than a hundred years ago. But, of course, there are always going to be people who think know better.
            The irony of you bringing this up is that you somehow think that if they’re true…if most of the Pentateuch were written by four different authors and put together a mere few hundred years before Christ, than by Moses, himself is that it doesn’t make the Pentateuch any less of an historical account of Israel. It would merely mean it was written down centuries after Moses existed and would obviously be more reliant upon oral tradition than eyewitnesses. It would require far more external evidence to verify its accuracy. Of course, the theory is far from the truth. And it certainly doesn’t alter the historicity of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Which is, of course, the subject of this discussion.
            But nice little red herring.

          • M Diaz

            such a sad retort…
            there are no historical accounts of moses nor the mass exodus

          • jmichael39

            actually there are…but because I’m not biting this red herring anymore…you’ll just have to read the book that the movie patterns of evidence is based off of. Now, would you like to return to the original topic? Or would you just like to continue pissing into the wind?

          • M Diaz

            don’t you know lying is a no no?
            there are no historical accounts of moses nor the mass exodus

          • jmichael39

            umm…read the book. Sorry to disappoint you but there is. Care to leave your little red herring now? Or would you like to continue looking like an illogical buffoon?

          • M Diaz

            there is no historical account for moses and the mass exodus…
            if your sorry pathetic appeal to special pleading is needed to assert something that should be verifiable for everyone, then your sorry pathetic argument is way too small for me…

          • jmichael39

            More than verifiable evidence. But obviously you’re too much of an intellectual fraud to even read the evidence. There’s evidence for every aspect of the Hebrew period in Egypt from a small thriving contingent to a large slave population to the plagues (the papyrus of Ipuwer) to the abandonment of the land (Bietak and the Avaris dig) all the way through the taking of Canaan. Time to do your reading. Don’t look now, Diaz, but your obvious prejudice is starting to show in your laziness to do your research.

          • M Diaz

            doesn’t matter, there is no historical evidence of moses or the mass exodus…none

            John McDermott, Reading the Pentateuch
            Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
            William Dever. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?

          • jmichael39

            Doesn’t matter that there IS archaeological evidence? Wow. That kind of a statement makes you sound quite ignorant. I highly suggest you do your research. But I give you credit for weaseling your way out of the other debate…which you clearly had no leg to stand on either. Red Herrings are nice, aren’t they. But don’t worry…I’m cool with this subject now that I know you’re grasping at straws once again. Once you see the evidence presented by Patterns of Evidence…give me a jingle. I’ll be waiting for your rebuttal. Until then…save your Bart Ehrman quotes. Bart’s mentor, Metzger has forgotten more than Bart has ever known about these things. And Metzger would deeply disagree with Bart’s conclusions.
            Oh and Bart’s issues as presented in his blog have been refuted by the Patterns of Evidence…but you wouldn’t know that, would you? You’re too full of yourself to investigate the evidence presented in Patterns of Evidence. You’re too interested in finding a reason NOT to believe there is a God rather to finding a positive existential worldview.

          • M Diaz

            you know for the purpose of argument…lets just say that the story in Exodus did happen and moses was a real person…i’ll give you the benefit of the doubt…
            are you suggesting that that the god in the buybull, the supposed creator of the universe (even though there is no standard available that can qualify the assertion that the prime mover is the god in the buybull) was concerned about a particular tribe in search for a particular piece of real estate?
            do you really want me to take that seriously?
            you poor poor sap, what are you smoking?

          • jmichael39

            ah, the real Diaz has finally showed up in all her disgusting, prejudicial glory.
            Do you really think the God of the universe owes you an explanation? LMAO. But He actually did explain His reasons. Because He made a commitment to Abraham because of Abraham’s trust. Its called a covenant. But if you actually ever really read the Bible, you’d know that. And you’d also know that He expanded that covenant to include anyone who accepts the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross. But what do you care. Like Pharaoh before you, God could appear suddenly in your living room, tell you He’s real and that the message of the Bible is true, then vanish…and that still wouldn’t be enough for you. I get it. I understand. For whatever reason, you have no desire to be subject to the holiness of God. Fine…but stop pretending that this is about evidence or rational thinking or logic or anything else. Its about your choice to reject what you don’t want to accept. Live with it.

          • M Diaz

            “Do you really think the God of the universe owes you an explanation?”
            no you non thinking twit you do…

          • jmichael39

            Hey guess what. I DID explain it. So now what? You wanna try your hand at contextual criticism? maybe a study in Koine Greek? Perhaps you want an exegetical study of I Corinthians 15? Maybe a statistical study of the prophetic fulfillments of Jesus as the Messiah? Oh, wait…we already did that. You’re in over your head, Diaz. You’re just another intellectual fraud trolling the Christian sites in hopes of opportunities to embarrass a ‘crazy Christian’ or two with what you think you know about the Bible and God and Christianity. But now you’ve been exposed. Time to move on.

          • M Diaz

            Sorry, you are not going to pull me
            into your circular argument…there is no
            standard that can qualify any claims about an idea called god other then wishful thinking…

            You come off as like a Trekkie of sorts, which is cute. Considering that you are attempting to sell the
            idea of religious faith by means of facts.
            Thats is sort of a good thing, but again the problem with your argument is, its circular.

            You see, you cannot demonstrate that god made a commitment to anyone, much less Abraham. Sure you can demonstrate that there are places in the middle east that exists that are mentioned in this fable, but that is like a person in the distant future coming across a spiderman script and thinking, “hey, Spiderman must be real cause the story
            mentions New York, so Spiderman has to be real”, yea,
            that’s you.

            You may be impressed by a talking bush, cool, but I’m not.
            You many be impressed with the idea of stoning people to death who make you uncomfortable (and who pose no threat to society) to death, I’m not.
            You may be impressed with the idea of owning other people…I’m not
            You may be impressed of assuming a girl isn’t a virgin because she didn’t bleed with her first sexual intercourse and then are justified in stoning her to death, I’m not.

            You may be impressed with the global flood, not me…especially since a fossil of penguins, kangaroos, polar bears, have never been discovered in that region or even surrounding regions.

            The idea of scapegoating in order to prevent earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, droughts, sand storms, disease, may really knock your socks off, but that remains to be something
            an ignorant person would be impressed by cause we know HOW these things happen.

          • jmichael39

            “you are not going to pull me into your circular argument” – so says the queen of the illogical argument. You and your red herrings. Even this last post of yours…red herring after red herring. At least you finally admitted something.

            By saying, “there is no standard that can qualify any claims about an idea called god” you admit that you don’t care about rational, logic, evidence, or any ‘standard’ by which I could prove the existence of God. Only a mind that has made its decision already would make such a statement. Only a mind that is fully closed and utterly irrational would make such a statement. Only a mind that has subjectively rejected every form of fact that substantially contradicts its already decided beliefs would make such a statement.
            I repeat my statement from my last post, you’re a fraud, Diaz…and intellectual fraud. You’re filled with hatred and bitterness (who the heck knows why) and you hide behind what you think is intellect. But you’re a fraud. I even gave you an out over this Patterns of Evidence book. In order to see if you would even take ten seconds to look it up. But you couldn’t even do that much in order to view the arguments of an opponent. If you had you’d have seen that while part 1 of the movie has been out, the book has not been released yet. It won’t be out for another few months. Not that the movie didn’t actually do a fabulous job of refuting your antiquated claims about the exodus, but the book isn’t out yet. Too late now. You’ve been exposed. Go get help, Diaz. You’re honestly wasting your life away in all this hatred and fraud.

          • M Diaz

            i know for a fact that you are a pedophile, prove me wrong
            maggot

          • jmichael39

            That’s total BS and you know it. I’ve provided proof. You just don’t like the proof because it doesn’t jive with your prejudices.

          • M Diaz

            come you sicko, prove you are not a pedophile

          • jmichael39

            You’re pathetic. You’ve lost your mind with your hatred for anything that doesn’t jive your prejudices.
            As I’ve said, I’ve proven my case. Go watch the movie…refute the evidence or piss off.
            Or don’t.
            Every post you make now just makes you appear that much more ignorant and hate-filled. So just keep on posting. While I find your vanity humorous…you’re actually just a sad human being.

          • M Diaz

            no you are pathetic. since you can’t prove you are not a pedophile then that MUST mean you are…

          • jmichael39

            The evidence is there…watch the movie and refute it. You’re looking so incredibly lost, Diaz. You weren’t expecting someone to pull back the curtain on your sick hatred for Christians, did you? Did you cheer when ISIS beheaded those 21 Coptic Christians? It wouldn’t surprise me if you did.

          • M Diaz

            “The evidence is there..”
            yep, i’ve already alerted the authorities…better give yourself up you sick individual

          • jmichael39

            For someone who seems to thrive on trying to point out what she thinks are the logical fallacies of others, you’re extremely good at non-sequiturs/red herrings.

            Sick human being. And can’t even accept defeat with an semblance of grace. SMH….you might just be the worst case of intellectual fraud I’ve seen in a long time.

          • M Diaz

            interesting, being that you can’t prove you are not a pedophile

          • jmichael39

            and you can’t refute the evidence about the exodus…or the evidence for the Resurrection…or the evidence for the divine authorship of the Bible…or the evidence for the existence of God (oh, wait, we’ve not gone down that path…sorry…though I’m sure you couldn’t refute that evidence either). Keep going, Diaz. Let’s see exactly how much a fool you can make of yourself.

          • M Diaz

            “and you can’t refute the evidence about the exodus”
            and you can’t refute you are not a pedophile

          • jmichael39

            I don’t need to refute it. You’ve presented no evidence. I HAVE presented evidence for the claims I’ve made. You just are stupid to refute the evidence.

          • M Diaz

            “I don’t need to refute it.”

            I know, because you are

            “You’ve presented no evidence.”

            according to your logic, my assertion should suffice

            do you have an extra chromosome too?

            “I HAVE presented evidence for the claims I’ve made.”

            nope, the buybull is just a claim, there are no outside sources that have established even the most extraordinary “miracles” described in the buybull…the 3 hour ecllipse, the zombie awakening…i also find it odd that Jesus spoke of have faith tht can move mountains, yet he never did…hmmm.

            “You just are stupid to refute the evidence.”

            no, i rely on more then ONE source to warrant any belief i have sparky

          • jmichael39

            You OBVIOUSLY are too stupid to understand ANYTHING. The Bible is an accumulation of 66 completely independent historical documents, written by 40+ authors of various backgrounds, over 1500+ years.. The FACT that they were brought together as a COLLECTION in the fourth century does not subvert their completely independent nature. When two or more of those documents…written by two completely different people at two different times address the same issue…and by the very nature of the FACT that the authors are first hand witnesses of what they attest to…those documents provide definitive support to each other’s historical accounts.

            Would it be nice to have additional evidence to support those various accounts, yes. And WE DO. I even listed some of them for one of your fellow atheists the other day.

            The FACT that the Bible is a COLLECTION of 66 significant historical documents seems to escape you. You seem to think that just because you don’t like the content of those documents that somehow subverts their historical significance. To bad you’re utter bitterness against anything Christian has blinded you to those FACTS.

            But here, I’ll give you one last chance to redeem your pathetic intellectual dignity. The Resurrection account is THE single most important event to Christianity. Even Paul says in I Cor. 15 that if there was not resurrection of Christ then all of Christianity is moot (paraphrasing obviously). Over the years there have been numerous ways Christian apologists have approached this subject. But in recent years there’s been a more simple approach to it. Rather than debating all the complex details, for which there is significant debate about, a man by the name of Gary Habernas put together what’s called the “minimal facts approach”.

            What that means is that he only presents the facts that meet two criteria. 1) these must be facts that have significant historical evidence to support them and 2) this evidence must be so significant that even the most skeptic of scholars accept them as facts.

            Habermas pulled together more than 2200 sources on the subject of the Resurrection written since 1975 (in multiple languages) and narrowed the list of minimal facts to a couple of dozen. He later simplified it even more by raising just FIVE FACTS….broadly accepted by the vast majority of scholars on the historicity of the Resurrection account…from their own words.

            Fact 1 – Jesus was killed by crucifixion. Even liberal, John Dominic Crossan says, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can be.” Skeptic John Tabor said, “I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead.” Both Garth Ludemann, who’s an atheist, and Bart Ehrman (yes, that Bart Ehrman) an agnostic, call the crucifixion an indisputable fact.

            Why do they come to this conclusion? Because all four gospel (independent accounts) speak of it. And several non-biblical sources also speak of it…Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapian, and even the Jewish Talmud confirm the biblical accounts.

            Fact 2 – Jesus’ disciples believe he rose and appeared to them. There are three strands of evidence for this. 1) Paul’s testimony about the disciples. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians dated around A.D. 55 is what I referred to earlier as Paul’s statements about how vital the Resurrection is to Christianity. 2) oral traditions passed down by the early church. What you read in I Corinthians 15 is considered by many scholars to nothing less than a “creed”…the earliest of Christian creeds that many trace back to Paul’s time with Peter. Many of the sermons recorded in Acts by the disciples are considered summaries of the original sermons passed down orally during the early church. and 3) written works of the early church. Even the most skeptical of scholars date the gospels as being written in the first century…within 30-40 years of Christ’s death. Then there are very early Church fathers, Tertulian, Irenarus, Clement, Polycarp and others spent time under the discipleship of some of the apostles, like John. I can present some of their writings dating the late 1st and very early 2nd centuries affirming the Apostles believed they had encountered the risen Jesus.

            Fact 3 – The conversion of the church persecutor, Paul. We know from multiple sources that Paul, then known as Saul of Tarsus, was an enemy of the Christian church. Whatever Paul experienced, it changed his life completely so that he was willing to die for the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

            Fact 4 – The conversion of Jesus’ half-brother James. Both John and Mark report that none of Jesus’ brothers believe in him. While this isn’t necessarily sufficient evidence, one has to wonder why anyone would report that such a prominent first century Rabbi’s own brothers didn’t believe in him at first. Paul even writes about James’ conversion in that I Corinthians ‘creed’. James even writes about his own doubts. Nevertheless, whatever converted James, he was willing to be martyred for his beliefs. In addition, James’ conversion and martyrdom is spoken about by several of the early church fathers.

            Fact 5 – Jesus’ tomb was empty. While not as universally accepted by Habermas’ list of scholars, Habermas says that more than 75% of those scholars do accept this fact. That being said, there are three fundamental strands of evidence supporting this fact. 1) The Jerusalem Factor…namely that it would make little sense for ANYBODY to go around preaching about the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem where anyone could simply point to where Jesus was buried, the stone could be moved and the resurrection claims could be refuted. 2) Enemy Attestation – Not only does Matthew report that Jesus’ enemies made up a story that Jesus’ body was stolen by his disciples, but Tertulian and Justin Martyr both speak of these accusations. But here’s the point, why would Jesus’ enemies have to say his body was stolen if the tomb were not empty? and 3) testimony of women – This is rather often missed reality. Women in NT times were never permitted to testify about anything. They were the lowest on the totem pole of society (as horrible as that is to accept). The very fact that the Resurrection account begins with Jesus’ female disciples discovering the empty tomb is the wrong foot to start off on if these Apostles were trying to make up some story about the risen Jesus and they wanted any semblance of credibility. William Ward of Oxford University put it this way, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor [of the empty tomb]. and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”

            So what’s the best explanation for the evidence…and explanation that doesn’t leave out any of the facts or strain to make anything fit?

            N.T. Wright once wrote, “It is no good falling back on ‘science’ as having disproved the possibility of the resurrection. Any real scientist will tell you that science observes what normally happens; the Christian case is precisely that what happened to Jesus is not what normally happens.”

            So give it a shot, Diaz. I’m giving you a chance to utterly destroy all of Christianity by refuting the conclusion that we make as a result of the facts, that Jesus was raised from the dead.

          • M Diaz

            “You OBVIOUSLY are too stupid to understand ANYTHING.”

            do you think i care what a pedophile thinks?

            “The Bible is an accumulation of 66 completely independent historical documents”

            hahhahah…that have yet to be demonstrated to be representing the supreme being of the universe…

            careful, your desperation is showing epically…this word salad of yours is based on circular reasoning, because these “66 completely independent historical documents”

            are just claims…

            but like i said before, if you are impressed by books that were written from a time of ignorance regarding diseases, mental retardation, earthquakes, droughts, sand storms, comets, meteors while relied on sacrificing scapegoats to appease their god in hopes of not facing these NOW EXPLAINED PHENOMENON
            go right ahead…your god is simply way too small for me

          • M Diaz

            still reaching …

          • jmichael39

            Still waiting for you to address the facts or present an explanation for them. And/or to present your evidence for logical fallacies.

          • M Diaz

            no no no, you see when any claims about god are made WITHOUT utilizing CRITERIA that would establish the claim objectively, by means of observation, to determine any claims about god is true, then any claims about god remain to be claims…

            you haven’t even passed go yet…

            your argument is entirely empty, because i could replace god with leprechaun, since you have yet to establish any god claims with a standard, thusly leprechaun = god…so again, i am waiting for you to present the standard you use to qualify your claims about god

          • Robert Coker

            Scroll to the top of the page, and you will see Lemmy Caution originated
            the thread with his comment. As such, the burden of proof is on those
            supporting his contention there is no God. Now, kindly either bring your
            evidence to the table or you have lost the “argument.”

          • M Diaz

            you forgot one thing, he was left on the cross to rot, a common practice for the criminals of the day…not a convenient truth for you, eh?

          • jmichael39

            And the ‘common practice’ during the Jewish Passover would not have allowed that to happen. So provide some sort of historical evidence to contradict the statement as the apply to Jesus’ death.

          • M Diaz

            doesn’t matter, the romans didn’t care for criminals even if they were jewish, do you really think this jesus who committed the crime of treason would be treated favorably? hahhahhahah…additionally the story goes something like this…a woman, named Mary went to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body..but see, there is a big problem here, she wasn’t married to this man, cause this man wasn’t married, therefore a woman anointing the body of a man she wasn’t married to couldn’t happen according to Jewish law…ooops

          • jmichael39

            Actually, the accounts indicate that the Jewish hierarchy had told the Romans that Christ’s followers had indicated their desire to steal the body of Christ after His death. So the Romans assigned a detail to guard the tomb. And, unless you can provide substantive evidence to contradict that account, well, you’re just SOL.
            I’ve heard of this supposed tradition about anointing. However, in each instance in which I’ve read about it I’ve never once seen any historical documentation to support this contention. I would love to see some ancient texts on this tradition. Do you have references to any? But even if true, so what? It doesn’t alter any of the other facts presented, nor explain them away.

          • M Diaz

            ” the accounts indicate that the Jewish hierarchy had told the Romans that Christ’s followers had indicated their desire” biblical accounts? hahhahha, sorry you don’t get to hide behind special pleading or circular reasoning, so i suppose you aren’t interesting in being taken seriously…

          • jmichael39

            ” biblical accounts? hahhahha” REFUTE it. provide historic documentation to refute the account. You can claim foul all you want about the historical accuracy of the Bible…but unless you provide historical evidence that contradicts the account, guess what ? Yep, you got it, YOU’RE SOL.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Excellent presentation of the Minimal Facts Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth – as attested to by the overwhelming majority of New testament scholars, Christians and skeptics alike. Thank you for taking the time to post that! Well-done, JMichael!

          • Curiousbill

            I don’t know why you bother. Their book tells them something. Further on in the book it tells them that that “something” is true. Self fulfilling prophecies. They rarely read the whole book. Just selected quotes and readings given to them by their spiritual leaders, most of whom pay a Christian (or put your own religion here) service to dig cute sound-bites and out of context quotes to pass on to their flocks.
            I also think it’s cute when “the creator” automatically refers to THEIR god. They seen to have no clue as to how many creator myths are out there.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Bible prophecy is true because the Bible says they happened? Yeah, that’s “irrefutable” all right.

          • jmichael39

            Do you have any evidence to show otherwise? Seriously, you must have a better argument than that.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Evidence of what? I didn’t say anything.

          • jmichael39

            Let’s put it this way…historical evidence validates the events occurred. The Dead Sea Scrolls alone prove the prophecies were written long before the historic events. So, what’s your problem?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What “historical events” prove Biblical prophecies happened?

          • jmichael39

            umm…well would you like a list of the historic events… and the prophesies they fulfilled?

            1 for every day of the year – http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm

            Of course, I know a lot of those prophecies are not easy for people like you to understand. So let’s do this. Let’s just take EIGHT of them. Eight that are clear, concise and easy to understand.

            From – http://www.askapastor.org/proph.html

            A. Fulfilled Prophecies Were Actually Written At Or After The Time Of Jesus

            Answer: If you are not satisfied with the date of 450 BC as the date of the Old Testament completion, then realize that the Greek translation of the Old Testament was completed in 250 BC.
            Therefore, it appears evident that there were at least 250 years between the time of the writing of the prophecies and their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

            B. The Fulfilled Prophecy In Jesus Was Deliberate On His Part. He Knew The Old Testament Well Enough And Just Set Out To Fulfill All Of Them.

            Answer: This might seem possible until we realize that thee were many prophecies outside of His control, such as:

            1. Place of birth (Micah 5:2)
            2. Time of birth (Daniel 9:25; Genesis 49:10)
            3. Manner of birth (Isaiah 7:14)
            4. Betrayal
            5. Manner of death (Psalm 22:16)
            6. People’s reactions (Mocking, spitting, staring, etc.)
            7. Piercing of His side
            8. Burial

            C. The Fulfilled Prophecy In Jesus Was Coincidental, An Accident

            Answer: Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963) determines the probability of one man fulfilling eight of the prophecies of the Old Testament for the Messiah to be 1 in 10 to the 17th power.

            Now let’s try to imagine what this means. If we took that many silver dollars (100,000,000,000,000,000) and laid them over the State of Texas, they would cover the state two feet deep. Now mark one of the silver dollars, stir the whole mass thoroughly, blindfold a person, and tell him/her that they can travel as far as they want but must pick up one silver dollar and say that it is the marked one. What chance would s/he have of picking up the right one? It would be the exact same odds of anyone fulfilling eight of the Messianic prophecies by chance alone.

            Peter Stoner then goes on to consider the possibility of any one person fulfilling 48 of the prophecies by chance. Here the odds jump to 1 in 10 to the 157th power. That number would look like this:

            1 out of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
            But of course, you don’t accept that these events actually occurred in history. So one must assume that you have some sort of extra-biblical historical documentation that contradicts the historical accounts presented in the Bible.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Are you kidding me with this? You’re proving the Bible is true with other passages from the Bible? We can prove books true by citing other sections of the same book now? Did you know that Harry Potter is true, then? He was given his destiny in the Order of the Phoenix and fulfilled it in the Deathly Hallows! In fact, I’m so confident that the Chosen One was Harry Potter that I would say there’s a 1 in twenty-two and a half billion chance that it was someone else!

            “But of course, you don’t accept that these events actually occurred in history.”

            No, I don’t.

            “So one must assume that you have some sort of extra-biblical historical documentation that contradicts the historical accounts presented in the Bible.”

            No, I don’t. And neither do you. Which is why I don’t believe these events happened.

            This is not how burden of proof works. You can’t state a claim then insist that it’s true until someone proves otherwise. You’re the claimant, YOU prove it.

            How about I just assert that my mother was a lizard alien from the planet Zendar. You can’t prove otherwise without exhuming her body so I guess it’s true then.

          • jmichael39

            That’s great, except for one small little detail. Neither Harry Potter, nor any of your other examples, are relevant historical documents, whose recorded events are, in many instances, affirmed by internal evidence, external evidence and archaeological evidence. Which, in case you weren’t aware, is how ancient historical documents are verified. Feel free to do your research.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, internal evidence is not evidence. External evidence and archaeological evidence would be great, but you haven’t shown us any.

          • jmichael39

            If you actually understood what the bible is then you would know that internal evidence IS evidence. The Bible is 66 uniquely different books written by 40 different people of seriously diverse backgrounds over 1500 years. When a tax collector named Matthew writes about an incident and a wholly different person…a physician named Luke…writes about that same incident we are completely justified in comparing their accounts of that incident and affirming them as either supporting each other or not. It is a fallacy to consider the bible as purely one document…as it is not. That’s a mistake even many Christians make, but most scholars do not.
            Is it better to also have extra-biblical documents and/or archaeological evidence as well? Yes, of course. But absent any contradictory documentation, it is completely acceptable to see two different accounts of an incident written by two different authors within the Bible as being affirming.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, they’re all separate and they all need independent verification. You can’t use one unverified source to prove another.

            How do you know Matthew even met Jesus? What if he just made it all up? And what if Luke just read Matthew’s account, rewrote it himself, and put his name on it?

            You’re right that the Bible is many books by many authors. I just don’t know why we should trust any of them.

          • jmichael39

            Do you have any clue the illogic of that first statement.
            1) they ARE ‘separate’ AND independent and quite capable of standing on their own as independent historical documents.
            2) while you’re wrong that NO independent historical document “needs” anything else in order for it to be an useful and valid historical document, it does HELP to have verification from other sources.
            3) after acknowledging that each of the 66 books of the Bible stand alone as separate and independent writings, you proceed to suggest that they cannot be used to validate each other. How do you get to that illogical conclusion? Simply because the church chose to pull these 66 books together in a collection and call it the Bible does not, by any stretch of the imagination alter the independent nature of each book. And thus each of them may and can be used to verify the accuracy of each other as historical and theological documents. I know, you don’t want to view them that way, but you honestly have no choice. They weren’t written by the same person. They weren’t written at the same time. They weren’t written to the same audience, even, in many cases. They are fully and completely independent. And while the church has pooled them together for ease of identifying the most historically rich documents in our history, there is no question as to their independent nature.
            How do I know that Matthew met Jesus? Because he is mentioned in Luke and Mark and in Acts. Because those who WERE with Jesus would have read his Gospel and known. And we have literally ZERO historical contradiction from ANY source…and there would have been plenty of opportunity for people to have said something and that would have made its way down to the point where the next generations of the church leaders would have known.
            BUT, just as importantly…what benefit would it have given a tax collector like Matthew to be identified with this sect called “Christians” when all these Christians were being martyred. The best way to weed out a liar is to place his head on the martyr’s block. He would have had to have been completely fooled into believing that Jesus rose from the dead and thus he should write this made up account of His life (which just so happened to be in harmony with the existing accounts of His life…Mark and probably Luke) or he would have had to have spent time with Jesus and been one of His apostles, as he claims.
            Why should trust any of them? You’re kidding, right? As with Matthew, what benefit would it have done ANY of them to make this stuff up about a Man who had just been executed by the Romans. They knew full well that their lives were toast, sooner or later, as a result of going around preaching Jesus. If you really think 500+ people would be able to perpetuated a huge lie like that without SOMEONE breaking down before martyrdom, then you trust them a lot more than you let on. Because it would take one amazing effort on their part to do this right down to the end…for all of them.
            And that doesn’t even account for Paul or James, the half-brother of Jesus. James was an open cynic about Jesus until he had what he called an encounter with the risen Jesus. Then he not only believe he too was willing to die for that belief. Why would he have changed his mind? And Paul was not only a cynic, he was one of the leaders of the men trying to persecute these Christians. Why, in the world, would a man like that not only stop his persecuting, but then become one of those willing to die for this new faith?
            Sure, one, two, maybe 5 or 10 people could have conspired to lie and maybe, just maybe they could all hold out on that lie all the way to death. But 500+ plus James and Paul?

          • jmichael39

            Okay, stepping back from this, just a second…what criteria would you use (or probably more importantly, would experts in the fields ancient documents and history use) to validate the historical veracity of that document…no matter what the document is? In other words, what criteria would be use to validate the historicity of the writings of Josephus or Tacitus or anybody else? And wouldn’t we use the same criteria to validate the historicity of the 66 documents in the Bible?

          • Lexical Cannibal

            How about the fact that we can’t find any evidence outside of biblical canon that supports the story of Herod’s massacre of the innocents? The alleged Roman Census that put Jesus in Bethlehem doesn’t seem much more verifiable either.

          • jmichael39

            Considering the FACT that no one has excavate the archives of the Jerusalem post dating to 4 B.C. its not all that surprising. But since when does the lack of evidence prove anything? I know you’re used to living under a negative existential worldview, but the lack of evidence proves nothing….and has literally nothing to do with the 12 statements presented.

          • lynn

            Perhaps you might ought to read some world history concerning what was has been prophisied and what has actually taken place dowh through the ages.

    • dark477

      man we’re willing to update as new information becomes available.

    • Dr. Profound

      Yes, good. And if laws and opinions change, then what the leftists view as acceptable today may be unacceptable tomorrow. And if everyone has their own morally relativist view of right and wrong, law and morality, we have one heck of a traffic jam — a morass of a conflicted society.

    • M Diaz

      if you can demonstrate how you qualify what the word of god is, would be greatly appreciated

      • Crono478

        Everything that is written in Bible is God’s words.

        • M Diaz

          so you can’t demonstrate how you qualify what the word of god is, got it.

          • Crono478

            I just gave you the answer and you didn’t accept it.

          • M Diaz

            you might as well have replied with elephants live in the zoo…
            i asked you to DEMONSTRATE {{{HOW}}}} you qualify…{{{{ NOT}}} WHAT YOU CLIAM..
            are you capable of understanding the difference?

          • Crono478

            I apologize, I did not really understand what you meant by your question at first. This is a good question you asked too.

            I found a source that explains what qualifies to be God’s words. The link is at: https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/how-do-we-know-that-the-bible-is-true/

            The article comes up with this conclusion which is:

            “The truth of the Bible is obvious to anyone willing to fairly investigate it. The Bible is uniquely self-consistent and extraordinarily authentic. It has changed the lives of millions of people who have placed their faith in Christ. It has been confirmed countless times by archaeology and other sciences. It possesses divine insight into the nature of the universe and has made correct predictions about distant future events with perfect accuracy. When Christians read the Bible, they cannot help but recognize the voice of their Creator. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, and it demonstrates this claim by making knowledge possible. It is the standard of standards. The proof of the Bible is that unless its truth is presupposed, we couldn’t prove anything at all.”

          • M Diaz

            I see so your demonstration is to appeal to an unsound argument..let me explain why I say that:

            ” The Bible is uniquely self-consistent and extraordinarily authentic.”

            that is circular logic, which is a logical fallacy.

            A is true because B is true…but you need to establish that both A and B are true >>INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER<< which would establish A and B are both true.

            "It has changed the lives of millions of people who have placed their faith in Christ."

            so has non belief, or other religious beliefs

            "It has been confirmed countless times by archaeology and other sciences."

            that is not a true statement. for instance, there is no historicity of Moses and there are no Egyptian accounts for the massive Exodus either, considering the extraordinary events you would expect those stories to be verified independently from the bible claims…another example of this is the 3 hour eclipse that others would have confirmed that event happened and the raising of the dead which is claimed in Matthew…being that these extraordinary claims have not been supported by other historians of the time, then these are just claims.

            "It possesses divine insight into the nature of the universe and has made correct predictions about distant future events with perfect accuracy."

            this is just another claim that has to be established with a demonstration

            "When Christians read the Bible, they cannot help but recognize the voice of their Creator."

            you can say the same thing about Muslims

            " The Bible claims to be the Word of God, and it demonstrates this claim by making knowledge possible."

            knowledge based on circular reasoning isn't knowledge, it's a claim, and i believe i already explained how circular reasoning operates

            "It is the standard of standards"

            another claim. wishful thinking isn't a standard of standards

            "It is the standard of standards. The proof of the Bible is that unless its truth is presupposed, we couldn’t prove anything at all."

            to tacitly assume at the beginning of a line of an argument that something is the case you first need to establish that THING, in this case, what the word of god is, independently. That hasn't been established.

            why not just say, "I cannot demonstrate my faith"

            can you tell me the difference between your religious faith and gullibility?

          • Crono478

            “that is circular logic, which is a logical fallacy.”

            To prove that someone use circular logic in his argument, you
            must prove that he stated that A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true. In this sentence, it describes that the Bible has two attributes that are: self-consistent and extraordinarily authentic. This is not the evidence of
            circular logic.

            “so has non belief, or other religious beliefs”

            This still confirms what the first chapter of Romans in Bible
            states about people who have not placed faith in Christ.

            “It has been confirmed countless times by archaeology and
            other sciences.”

            “that is not a true statement. for instance, there is no
            historicity of Moses and there are no Egyptian accounts for the massive Exodus either, considering the extraordinary events you would expect those stories to be verified independently from the bible claims…another example of this is the 3 hour eclipse that others would have confirmed that event happened and the raising of the dead which is claimed in Matthew…being that these extraordinary claims have not been supported by other historians of the time, then these are just claims.”

            I disagree with you. In fact, I addressed this to someone else
            who made the similar claim. Bible is 100% historical accurate because God cannot lie. It has been supported by archeological finds.

            Archeologist William Matthew Flinders Petrie
            discovered wooden boxes buried beneath the floors of many of the houses. When opened they were found to contain the skeletons of infants, sometimes two or three in a box, and aged only a few months at death. Petrie reburied these human remains in the desert. This parallels with the Bible. The final plague before the exodus of Israel people was to kill all first-born sons. Only way each family could avoid this is if they kill each lamb without blemish and put some of blood on their home’s two doorposts and one lintel. When God sees these homes with blood on two doorposts and one lintels, He passed over them and slew all firstborn sons. This is eventually known as Passover, one of annual festivals held by Jewish people. In fact, it was during the Passover that Jesus died on the Cross.

            I will give you four other examples as well. Leonard Woolley,
            British archeologist actually have discovered the city of Ur, where Abraham lived before God called him to leave his hometown to travel to the Promised Land.

            https://oi.uchicago.edu/resear… – They did find evidence that Sargon, an Assyrian king mentioned in Isaiah 20:1, existed. Also, Isaiah 37 talked more about him too.

            http://www.ancient.eu/Esarhadd… shows a stone monument that mentioned Esarhaddon.

            This is another Assyrian king that is mentioned in 2 Kings 19:37

            http://www.britishmuseum.org/e… confirms that an Assyrian king named Sennacherib mentioned in 2 Chronicles 32 did exist.

            http://www.britishmuseum.org/e… – Mentioned the fall of Nineveh. That was actually recorded in Nahum 1 in Bible.

            “You can say the same thing about Muslims”

            Muslims claims that Abraham is the father of their religion.
            This is actually true because Abraham had two sons, which are Ishmael and Isaac. First one was is the oldest and his mother is Hager who was Abraham’s handmaid. Second is with Sarah. God made promise to Abraham that his descendants will be as many as stars which is obviously too many for him to count. He promised that both Abraham and Sarah would have a son. They did not believe God that it will happen because Sarah was beyond conceiving age. When God makes a promise, He will always keep it. Abraham and Sarah did eventually have a son when they were 100 and 90 years old respectively.

            Genesis 16:10-12 states that Ishmael’s descendants will
            be like this:

            10 Then the Angel of the Lord said to her, “I will multiply your
            descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude.” 11 And the Angel of the Lord said to her:

            “Behold,
            you are with child,
            And you shall bear a son.
            You shall call his name Ishmael,
            Because the Lord has heard your affliction.

            12 He shall be a wild man;
            His hand shall be against every man,
            And every man’s hand against him.
            And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”

            The point is, three groups of people which are Christians,
            Jewish people and Muslims. All of them are at least 4 billions in population. This demonstrates God’s promise He made to Abraham.

            “knowledge based on circular reasoning isn’t knowledge, it’s a claim, and i believe i already explained how circular reasoning operates”

            I already explained to you about this earlier in my reply.

            “another claim. wishful thinking isn’t a standard of standards”

            If Bible is not “standards of standards” then where do
            you get your standards? It must come from something. It cannot be from”nothing”.

            “to tacitly assume at the beginning of a line of an argument
            that something is the case you first need to establish that THING, in this casewhat the word of god is, independently. That hasn’t been established.

            why not just say, “I cannot demonstrate my faith””

            I demonstrate my faith by sharing His words with you. I defend
            my faith by giving answers to your questions that you may be asking.

            “can you tell me the difference between your religious faith and gullibility?”

            The difference is that I know that Jesus lives in me because
            I confessed that I am a sinner and asked Him to forgive me and accepted Him to be my Savior.

            Gullibility? This is when one get tricked or coerced into something such as false religions (such as cults). Bible does not teach that. It teaches that every one of us have choice to make decision for ourselves. God will not force this on us. Yet, God makes it clear that all of us are sinners on this world.It is why He sent His son to die on the Cross for us so we can be saved from our sins.

          • M Diaz

            what an embarrassing retort…

            the quote offered to me said this “The Bible is uniquely self-consistent” THAT is circular self consistent = circular , if you can’t understand that simple fact, then i can’t help you

            besides there are many many other reasons to warrant the idea that the bible is one big empty claim..for instance, if everything that happens is going according to gods plan, then if your loved one gets cancer and dies a horrible painful death, that was a part of a loving gods plan…or if during an earthquake thousands of children are buried alive under the rubble, that too was a part of a loving gods plan..so there is another reason why i think every god claim is just empty claims…

          • Crono478

            Have you ignored some of answers I offered to you that shows it supports Bible? Especially with some of facts we see today?

            I actually see that you have not provided actual answers both to me and jmichael39 on why Bible is not true. Both of us provided you answers and evidences to back it up.

            “besides there are many many other reasons to warrant the idea that the bible is one big empty claim..for instance, if everything that happens is going according to gods plan, then if your loved one gets cancer and dies a horrible painful death, that was a part of a loving gods plan…or if during an earthquake thousands of children are buried alive under the rubble, that too was a part of a loving gods plan..so there is another reason why i think every god claim is just empty claims…”

            Yes, you are getting there now… This is a good question too. Death was not originally part of this world. It is due to Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God which is a sin. The wages of sin is death which entered the world after that. Every one of us were born with sin nature. You know the famous saying, “A man reaps what he sows” (which is actually from Bible). In other words, consequences followed Adam and Eve as well as his descendants which is us.

            This is why we see all kind of sufferings in this world. God did not create this but He allowed them to happen. It allowed for His plan to happen. Isaiah 53 prophesied that all of us are like sheep that have gone astray. Each of us have turned to our own way. We despised and rejected the Man. He did nothing wrong. He never sinned. Yet, God put all of the world’s sin on Him so many of us can be justified through Him.

            This turned out to be Jesus who bore our sins on the Cross so we can believe in Him and be saved from our sins. The reason why God did this is because:

            John 3:16

            16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

            —–

            I did mention that the wages of sin is death. However, the second part of Romans 6:23 offers good news.

            Romans 6:23

            23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

          • M Diaz

            sorry, you haven’t DEMONSTRATED “Everything that is written in Bible is God’s words.”
            because you are using the bible to prove the bible…
            that doesn’t work in the real world.
            Our criminal justice system doesn’t ask the criminals if they are guilty of the charges and then take them on their word…that is why using the bible to prove the bible does not work…i think i already explained earlier, but you seem to be having difficulty understanding what the appeal to circualr logic is…
            why not just say something like this instead
            >>>I cannot demonstrate my faith as my faith is what i use to determine the bible is god’s words<<<???

            but no, you go on this tangent of circular fallacies that I already told you WHY they don't work.

            So i am left here thinking, maybe your faith isn't strong enough and doesn't suffice as an answer cause you never offered it as the means for which you came to that conclusion…

            so again, if faith is HOW you came to the conclusion,
            can you explain to me the difference between faith and wishful thinking?

          • Crono478

            Have you ever see what Jmichael39 and I wrote about archeological evidence that supports many of what Bible has written? What is more is, there were writings outside Bible that confirmed actual history events that were recorded in Bible. This is hardly “using Bible to prove Bible is true”

            What we use is actual evidence and facts that we found to prove that Bible is true. This is not circular logic used in my argument that you are continuously obsessed with. You kept on claiming that there are references that proves that Bible is an empty claim. To this date, you have not provided me ANY sources to back up your answer. Why should I continue to discuss with you when you decline to provide me actual refutation of my answers along with sources? All of your claims you make against Bible is without merit when you do not have any supporting information to share with us.

            For the criminal justice system, in order to convict someone of a crime requires evidence and testimonies by witnesses to support the evidence.

            1) [Testimony of witnesses] Actual history records confirmed many historical records that were written in Bible. I already provided some of examples in my previous replies.
            2) [Evidence] Evidences were discovered during archeologists. Again, I already gave you an example.

            What’s more is, God’s words also backed up the evidence. Don’t forget that God is our witness who recorded everything what happened from the beginning.

            Without any witnesses, how do we know what happened in the beginning? Scientists claims that they have evidence such as fossil records. However, their biggest problem is lack of written records / testimonies. Many of them ignores that fact and come up with what they believe have happened millions of years ago. The reality, it will not fly in our justice system when they require evidence and testimony by witnesses to prove that something did happen.

            Four years ago, I used to have same view that you currently have. I demanded people to give me real facts and evidence to back up. I refused to accept Bible because I thought it is all fantasy. I believed in everything what scientists says regarding evolution, our origins, and so on. I was so puzzled when Christians refused to believe some of what scientists claimed. They would not believe evolution even through that it’s widely unanimous by scientists that it is a fact. I had goals in my life such as my college education, my career and to have a family. I thought I would be completely satisfied with that and God wasn’t even needed in my life.

            It is until one day I was not fully satisfied with my career and was still single. I was at low point of my life. I learned the hard way that I cannot be satisfied with every aspect of my life fully. I realized what is the point of this now? I thought I knew better in life but realized how very little I do know despite my college education. My relationship with my previous girlfriend was anything but happy.

            I was at a low point of my life. I reflected on my life. I started to notice a pattern that have been happening throughout in my life. I could not engineer it myself. All of them could not be coincidence as the probability would be so high for this to happen. I realized only way this could be possible for my life to be like this is if God exists.

            My logic was that if God do exist, then I should be able to talk to Him directly. Therefore, I asked him if He have been with us since then. He answered “yes” which shook me to the core. I did not accept Jesus as my Savior just yet. I was still at low of my life. My mom eventually convinced me to go to a church. I was nervous about it because I was afraid that they would be completely blind with their faith or be gullible about it.

            I went to church and listened to a pastor who gave a sermon on Luke 19 about everyone despised Zacheus, tax collector. However, Jesus pointed that he is searching for lost soul and asked Zaccheus if He could go to eat with him at his house. In their culture, to go to eat at their house was a sign of mutual respect for each other. That was when I never even heard about Jesus searching for lost people. This is when I knew God was actually talking directly to me because He knew that I was lost.

            I eventually asked Jesus to forgive me for my sins and asked him to save me from it. That is when I became a Christian. I went from non-believing person to what I am now. I will defend my faith because I knew Jesus is real and saved me from my sins.

          • M Diaz

            “Have you ever see what Jmichael39 and I wrote about archeological evidence that supports many of what Bible has written? ”

            “What we use is actual evidence and facts that we found to prove that Bible is true.”

            “Why should I continue to discuss with you when you decline to provide me actual refutation of my answers along with sources?”

            because there is no historical evidence of Moses or the mass exodus as per Carol Meyers, an archeologist and professor of religion at Duke University, American Archeologist William Dever etc…the majority of biblical scholars agree that this legend was made up in538 – 332 BCE
            it is a narrative recounting the “spiritual origins” of a belief system…

            “My logic was that if God do exist, then I should be able to talk to Him directly. Therefore, I asked him if He have been with us since then. He answered “yes” which shook me to the core.”

            I used to think the same thing…
            can you demonstrate the difference between your faith and wishful thinking?

          • Crono478

            “because there is no historical evidence of Moses or the mass exodus as per Carol Meyers, an archeologist and professor of religion at Duke University, American Archeologist William Dever etc…the majority of biblical scholars agree that this legend was made up in538 – 332 BCE
            it is a narrative recounting the “spiritual origins” of a belief system…”

            Thank you for using citations to back up your answer. I see that both Carol Meyers and William Dever believe that absence of evidence proves that there is no such thing as exodus and it must be more of cultural thing.

            Actually, there is explanations on why we can not find archeological evidence that exodus did occur. First of all, sandstorms in Egypt including Sinai desert is well known for burying hundred of feet of sand over objects that might be left behind on the ground. The source found: https://books.google.com/books?id=SMZnDgFxiTUC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=sinai+sandstorm&source=bl&ots=KEiiogW2qX&sig=19p_W9clvEqkGgzeZmebyX35vJc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zv_gVLKHOcHGsQSe94GAAw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=sinai%20sandstorm&f=false do explain that.

            Also, I will mention one paragraph at a different source at: http://www.reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction. It stated,

            “I respect Professor Sperling and Rabbi Wolpe. They were understandably following the claims of some of our archaeologists. Those archaeologists’ claims that the Exodus never happened are not based on evidence, but largely on its absence. They assert that we’ve combed the Sinai and not found any evidence of the mass of millions of people whom the Bible says were there for 40 years. That assertion is just not true. There have not been many major excavations in the Sinai, and we most certainly have not combed it. Moreover, uncovering objects buried 3,200 years ago is a daunting endeavor. An Israeli colleague laughingly told me that a vehicle that had been lost in the 1973 Yom Kippur War was recently uncovered under 16 meters—that’s 52 feet—of sand. Fifty-two feet in 40 years!”

            Absence of evidence does not make the biblical account of exodus false either. I can give you a similar comparison, Richard III seized the throne in England and he became king. Later on, he died in the battle but his body was not found. It was a mystery for a long time. His name were recorded in English history. His body was finally discovered in 2012 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/world/europe/richard-iii-search-announcement/). Even prior to 2012, absence of his body does not prove that he was a fictitious person.

            Before Exodus occurred, I did mention evidence that was caused by 10th plague. What’s next is, Pharaoh Neferhotep I’s body wasn’t found. Although, Bible did not state his exact name but it did mention that Pharaoh refused to let Israel to go back to their Promised lands. 10 plagues were eventually sent by God to force Pharaoh to let Israel go. Soon after that, he went with an army of chariots to go after them. They died when they entered the dry ground of Red Sea before water went back on them and all of them perished. Outside Bible, historical record did mention his name. Just because his body has never been found proves that he is not real? How can one actually find his body if he actually drowned in Red Sea.

            The Biblical accounts of Exodus is extremely important to Jewish people and Christians. If whole Biblical accounts turns out to be false, then whole Bible is worthless. Same can be said for any part of Bible. This is because God cannot lie and his words will not be returned void. That is why I can trust in Him.

            “I used to think the same thing…
            can you demonstrate the difference between your faith and wishful thinking?”

            That is easy. Do you trust in doctors who would be operating on you? Is this because you believe that they know what they are doing with you? This is same as putting faith in them. Wishful thinking? It would mean you wish that something is X so something is true or false. I believe in Jesus as my Savior because God’s words explains why He is a savior and why we needs to be saved from our sins.

            A very good example of wishful thinking is: You think that you are a good person therefore you will go to heaven. The problem is, you don’t know if it is actually true or not.

          • M Diaz

            “absence of evidence proves that there is no such thing as exodus”
            pathetic retort…the FACT is there is no evidence for the existence of moses you twit…NONE!
            and you actually expect me to take your religious belief system seriously!!
            a belief system that was conjured up at a time when ignorant ppl sacrificed scapegoats to appease their god?

            wow, you must really work hard to hold on to such a stupid ideology

            it’s no wonder this world is in the toilet being that most of it is theistic…
            it’s embarrassing knowing i am related to you on a genetic

          • M Diaz

            “A very good example of wishful thinking is: You think that you are a good person therefore you will go to heaven. ”
            hahhha
            if you have to be told to be good, then you are not a good person…pathetic willful sociopath

          • Crono478

            No, I am not a good person, so are you too. We are both sinners. However, I am done with you as you resorted to insulting me.

          • M Diaz

            wait a second here…
            are you saying that you and i are both wretched evil vile and disgusting without Jesus, but because you believe that you have Jesus in you makes you perfect?

            hahhahhahhah…no way? really?
            so can you demonstrate how you arrived to that conclusion?

    • Cobra

      Amen

  • Paul Hiett

    And this is exactly why we need separation of Church and State. No one, regardless of their religious beliefs, should use those beliefs to affect the lives of others, especially not in a position of power as this judge.

    • Gary

      You mean that since my religion prohibits murder, and I believe my religion is right, those beliefs should not be used to affect the right of someone to murder you?

      • Paul Hiett

        That’s about as stupid an analogy as it gets, Gary, and I think you know that. Murder has always been “illegal” in every society, long before the Bible came to town. Even in cultures where Christianity has never been introduced they have laws against murder.

        You’re going to have to do better than that.

        • Gary

          Why should murder be illegal. Why is it wrong?

          • Paul Hiett

            Nice try at acting philosophical, but I’m not going to address such a stupid question.

          • Gary

            You only think the question is stupid because you have no answer.

        • Fundisi

          “Murder has always been “illegal” in every society, long before the Bible came to town.”

          That is your opinion, not fact.

          • Tim Raynor

            No, it’s a fact. I’m currently reading a book on the Vikings, which were mostly Pagan’s and atheists by the way. They had several laws making murder illegal, even laws on adultery without any knowledge of the Bible . Many societies throughout the world had similar laws way, way before Christianity was even thought up. The Library, cool story . . .

  • Fundisi

    First, no shock here – CNN has always been a propaganda ministry for the Democrat party and godless Liberalism.

    In the Declaration of Independence, it was clear that our Founding Fathers saw Nature’s God, the Creator as the sole Guarantor of our Liberty and since the Court first advanced the lie of Separation of Church and State and declared thereby that God was persona non grata in all our affairs, that He had no place in the public square, we have seen a steady erosion of those liberties and the moral/spiritual degradation of our country; and with our National Debt the seeds of our own economic destruction, wherein we are no longer, for the first time in our history the most prosperous, most powerful nation in the world. We have sold our national soul and godless, communist China has taken our place. So how is that separation of Church and State working out for us?

    • Paul Hiett

      Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with our economy.

      • Fundisi

        We were, despite our faults, blessed by God and were the most prosperous, most powerful country in all human history until you Leftists, under that despicable Hugo Black, the co-conspirator with FDR kicked God our of this country – period. He has thus removed His protection from this land and we are destroying ourselves listening to atheist liberals.

        • Paul Hiett

          Have you read the Treaty of Tripoli?

          • Fundisi

            Yes! It is not our Constitution, it was designed as your god Obama does in his policies today, to placate murderous Islam.

          • Paul Hiett

            Just…wow.

          • Oboehner

            Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:
            “The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.”

            Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:
            “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.”

            http://www.wallbuilders.Com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=125

          • Paul Hiett

            What part of “As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” is unclear?

          • Oboehner

            Taken out of context.

            What part of: “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.”
            is unclear?

    • Tim Raynor

      DOI has nothing – literally nothing – to do with common law of the land. It’s never been used in court case proceedings, nor used to imply legal decisions. It’s simply a document separating us from the tyranny of England at the time. The Constitution, however, is what the law of the land is, and in which says nothing about God, Jesus or Christianity.

  • Gary

    The heart of this disagreement is because some people have rejected morality. They don’t believe that God defines good and evil. They reject God’s law. Such people want civil laws that allow them to do as they please, and permit them to define good and evil for themselves. ssm is just the current issue. In the future, there will be more attempts by these people to change laws that restrict them from doing whatever they want.

    • Paul Hiett

      And why should everyone in this country live by the laws of your particular version of religion? What gives you the right to dictate to everyone else that we all need to live by whatever particular religion your parents made you believe in?

      • Gary

        What gives you the right to demand a change in who can marry who?

        • Paul Hiett

          Because the only argument against it is a religious argument, and no one should be forced to live under the rule of a religion they don’t agree with.

          • Gary

            So you want your beliefs to be used to make the laws instead of Christian beliefs. Why are your beliefs better?

          • Paul Hiett

            Not mine, but a collective agreement of laws that benefit and protect society. Much like we have now, actually, but with a clear cut separation of Church and State. We’re getting closer and closer as we can see over the past several years, but the pushback from the Christian culture has been harsh.

          • Fundisi

            The “collective?” Yes godless comrade Hiett, we hear you and your Communist friends.

          • Gary

            I don’t agree that your “collective agreement” benefits and protects society. I disagree with your “collective agreement”. Why should your side have its way?

          • Paul Hiett

            So then, explain to me why it’s ok for you to insist the we all follow your particular version of your particular faith, regardless of whether or not we believe? Why should the Jewish people be subjected to your religious laws, or Muslims? Should Hindus subject themselves to Christian law as well?

          • Gary

            Since it is you who wants to change the marriage laws, it should be you who explains why a change is justified. So far, all you have done is say you want them changed because you don’t like the existing laws, but you have not offered any valid reason why the change should be made.

          • Frank

            Not true. Before I knew Jesus, I knew that homosexuality was as wrong as murder. And everyone I grew up with believed the same. Had nothing to do with religion.

          • Paul Hiett

            And why, exactly, is it wrong?

          • Gary

            It is wrong because God said it is. That is the only possible reason why it could be wrong.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m curious as to why Frank says it’s wrong…apparently he has a non-religious reason for it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Out of curiosity, Gary, what is it about SSM that will directly affect your life?

          • Mr. B.

            Because there will come a time when homosexuals demand that they be “married” in my church or thousands of others like it because they have the right to do so, no matter the beliefs of the church or its leadership. That will make the Constitution useless.

          • Paul Hiett

            That still doesn’t affect you in any way, shape for form. So, exactly what is about SSM that is going to affect you?

          • Mr. B.

            You really don’t get it, do you? Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals are the ones who are forcing the rest of us to accept their sin. They want us to accept sinful, not to mention depraved, behavior as totally acceptable and something to be celebrated. Sorry buddy, that ain’t gonna happen. Homosexuals are inserting themseives into a religious covenant. Some of us take those covenants seriously, whether you do or not. That is how it would affect me. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, it will be a slippery slope to pedophilia and marrying animals, and it would further destroy the institution of marriage. Those people supposedly can’t help the way they feel either, so why deny them their “equal rights”?

          • Gary

            When bad laws are passed it negatively affects everyone either directly, or indirectly.
            But it is the wrong question. The right question would be why should ssm be legalized? And the right answer to that question would be that there is no valid reason why ssm should be legalized.

          • Paul Hiett

            You didn’t answer the question. How are you directly affected?

          • Gary

            Legalizing immorality perverts the government and society. It makes it more difficult to live morally because the laws value immorality more than morality, which makes those who work for the government more hostile to those who accept morality. It increases the danger for moral people.

          • Tim Raynor

            It should be legalized because gays are tax paying citizens and should be granted the same equal rights and civil liberties as any other citizen. Just because your “God” says no doesn’t mean other citizens have to obey it. Constitution is law of the land, not the Bible.

          • Gary

            Homosexuals already have the same rights and liberties that I have. They can marry just like anyone else. And by the exact same rules. The equality you want is for society to consider homosexuality the equal of heterosexuality. And you want immorality to be considered as valid as morality.

          • Tim Raynor

            Considering your sense of what YOU consider “morality” to be, as you keep saying, opinions vary. 😉

          • Gary

            Morality is what God says it is. It is not determined by our opinions.

          • Tim Raynor

            Again, that’s your opinion. Not everyone in the country believes as you do, nor do many believe morality comes from a god. One does not have to have a religion or believe in a god to have good morality. To say otherwise is pure nonsense.

          • Fundisi

            There is NO morality outside of God, everything else is relative morality, situational ethics, which morals shift with the Leftist political winds, which are promoted by frail, finite men and women with an agenda to kill faith and all morality.

          • Tim Raynor

            Yes there is, it’s called having empathy, love, respect and common sense. No god needed to have decent morals and respect for others. Plenty of people out there every day living a moral life without god(s) in it. Christian’s do not hold the rights or trademark on morality. and that is certainly a fact living in the US.

          • Gary

            God holds the trademark on morality. He defines what it is, and holds accountable those who violate his rules. If you think that YOU can decide for yourself what is right and wrong, you are mistaken. God will not allow you to do that.

          • Tim Raynor

            Plenty of people decide for themselves every single day what’s right and wrong, without the interference of some deity or religion. Again, you live in a country with OTHER PEOPLE that do not share the same opinion as yours. What’s nice about our country is the Constitution protects your right to your opinion, as well as mine. That’s what gives us equal ground under the law. You want to believe your god holds the trademark on morality, you certainly are free to believe that. Nevertheless, under the eye of the law, it’s nothing more than your opinion.

          • Gary

            Man has his laws, and God has his. And God always enforces his laws.

          • Tim Raynor

            So does man. Funny how that works.

          • Fundisi

            There is no real empathy, love or respect outside of God, every such attempt is based on selfishness and self interest, it is false, as all such things to be good must be the product of God’s Love which is selfless, self sacrificing and never seeking any reward.

          • Gary

            You are wrong. Morality has to be determined by God because only God has the authority to define it, and the authority to enforce it. Your views of morality are nothing but your opinion. And I don’t have to live by your opinion.

          • Tim Raynor

            And I don’t have to live by your opinion because I don’t believe there’s a magical god that determines morality. See how the country works?

          • Gary

            Fine. As long as I don’t have to accommodate you and the government does not try to make me live by what you think, then maybe we can both get through this life without confrontation. But I don’t think that will happen.

          • Tim Raynor

            Way not, Gary? I have no problem with you having your beliefs. Like you, as long as your beliefs are not forced on me, I’m perfectly happy with you living any way you want. There’s no reason we can’t co-exist and have different views on morality and life; that’s just how America works.

          • Frank

            Simple common sense by looking at the instruments in the act used. Kinda like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It’s pure discusting and insulting to nature, counter productive to society.

          • Paul Hiett

            1500 species of animals, humans included, would disagree that it’s not natural.

          • Fundisi

            See above, twice this asinine argument has been refuted.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, actually, it hasn’t. You just don’t like it.

          • Fundisi
          • Paul Hiett

            Did you really just try and use an “article” from a gay conversion website? That’s what you are going to try and use to debate with?

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            That is a propaganda site for a conversion therapy organization. A more biased source has rarely ever been cited.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

          • Fundisi

            Typical liberal and anti-Christ! You object to the site, but you cannot refute the facts about how animal homosexuality is a myth, so you can only attack the messenger, because you have nothing of value to offer.

          • James Grimes

            Disregard him. He trolls here with his vile and venom. You know the score.

          • Fundisi

            I had a person below brag about gay marriage and telling me to get over it and below was my true, heart felt reply to this vile sickness:

            “Get over it? Every day seeing this rotting, festering, metastasizing moral/spiritual cancer of homosexuality eating away at the soul of America and I should just get over it? How can I get over watching our country being destroyed from the inside by this vile social/moral and spiritual cancer? No, I can only watch in disgust and sorrow, watching you wicked people destroy this once great country and I weep over what was once a shining city upon a hill, envied by every nation on earth – slowly, painfully dying. I can only pray and hold my nose as I see America rotting away and leading hundreds of millions of souls into hell and weep over what once was and what will be no more – America is in its death throes and I should get over it?”

          • James Grimes

            Depravity will have no limits. Whether it’s The Useless or those liberals who call themselves “Christians,” the depraved will take every opportunity to do their evil. They will then brag about it and denounce those who hold to biblical truth. The joke is on them.

          • Spoob

            You do as well.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            NARTH has nothing valuable to offer. It is not a scientific source, and to say that they are frauds would be an understatement. Find a scientific source for your pointless argument about animals.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Because that’s how freedom works. People are allowed to do whatever they want if it doesn’t affect anyone else.

      • jmichael39

        Let me give you one good reason to follow God’s way….no not my version of God’s way…because God’s way is better for us.
        Good example…God’s way is for all sexual behavior to be part of a monogamous marriage arrangement. Yet, we think we know better and refuse to live in accordance with God’s way. But answer a simple question… how would the world be different if every human were capable of and willing to comply with just that one rule of God? List it off how the world would be different.

  • brandon_71087

    This guy CLEARLY doesn’t know what he is talking about. How this clown ever got elected to anything is a sign of the ignorance of Alabama’s citizens at large.

    • Gary

      Judge Moore knows very well what he is talking about.

      • brandon_71087

        He knows what he is talking about about as much as Sarah Palin did in her interview with Katie Couric, which is to say not a GD thing.

        • Gary

          Opinions vary.

          • brandon_71087

            This isn’t an opinion, this is obvious reality. His rambling tangents don’t make any sense at all. His strategy is “maybe if I yell real loud and wave my arms around, maybe people will think I know what I am talking about.” That strategy has failed spectacularly.

          • Gary

            Nonsense.

          • brandon_71087

            Anyone thinking this guy makes sense is clearly nonsensical themselves.

          • Gary

            Opinions vary.

          • Frank

            Yup that CNN reporter makes no sense whatsoever and is seriously deluded.

  • Steve

    When laws come from man you have tyranny, because no love is involved only force. When laws come from God and people follow them because they see that they are good, you have liberty. The reason homosexual marriage is wrong is not just because God says so, but because it destroys lives, families and national unity. Every society that has tried to normalize behavior which God says is grounded in selfishness, has quickly ended in disaster.

    • Paul Hiett

      God made the animals on the earth, right?

      • Oboehner

        What do animals have to do with human laws?

        • Paul Hiett

          Steve claimed that homosexuality is wrong, and that it destroys lives, and families, and national unity.

          Since God made the animals, I’m curious what his feelings are towards the over 1500 species that have been observed engaging in homosexual conduct?

          • Fundisi

            They do not engage in homosexual conduct, it has been well established this has nothing to do with love or sexual attraction, but a matter of power, aggression, dominance and other factors. So you want to use animals to excuse homosexuality, if in your opinion animals do it, then when humans do it, it is normal and acceptable, right? They also engage in cannibalism, so when your neighbor kills and eats other neighbors or members of your family, animals do it and so it is normal and should not be punished, right? When your neighbor bites off her husbands head after copulation, no crime there right, some in the animal kingdom do the same thing.

          • Oboehner

            Ah, the old “animals do gay stuff” fallacy, first off – animal’s act on instinct, I highly doubt they are consciously homosexual. Secondly animal’s engage in a number of activities such as rape, cannibalism, and killing then eating their young, do you advocate those things as well?

          • Kent Taylor

            If you read Gods word, he placed mankind above animals. We are not animals, nor is any part of our conscious being.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO and there are things like cannibalism, infanticide and rape in the animal world, too. Shall we use that to justify allowing cannibalism, infanticide and rape with humans?

        • Guest

          Look up “appeal to nature fallacy.”

      • http://www.project315.net/ James Johnson

        Look up ‘appeal to nature fallacy.’

        • Paul Hiett

          In this case, that does not apply. Humans ARE animals, that’s an undeniable fact. Homosexuality occurs in many species of animals. Ergo, homosexuality is completely natural.

          • http://www.project315.net/ James Johnson

            You resolved one logical fallacy by employing another: Your argument is that appealing to nature (i.e. the animal kingdom) to justify certain human actions is not an appeal to nature fallacy because “Humans ARE animals…”>>>Please look up “circular reasoning” or “begging the question.”

            Here is just one clear example of how we know humans are distinct from the animal kingdom and therefore we cannot look to WHAT HAPPENS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM TO PROVIDE MORAL CLARITY:

            P1: If humans are just animals there is nothing OBJECTIVELY wrong with forced copulation.
            P2: There IS something OBJECTIVELY wrong with forced copulation (i.e. rape).
            Conclusion: Therefore, humans are NOT just animals.

            If you deny premise 1, you deny your own argument (“humans are animals and therefore if an action is observable in the animal kingdom then there is nothing wrong with humans doing it). If you deny premise 2, then you deny your humanity.

    • Lizlovesthelord Jones

      AMEN AND JUST TO CORRECT A LITTLE STATEMENT THAT YOU SAID, BECAUSE I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID…IT IS BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO…CAUSE WHEN YOU ADD THE OTHER PART OF WHAT YOU SAID, IT ALL COMES BACK AND FITS INTO, BECAUSE GOD SAID SO. GOD BLESS YOU

      • MattFCharlestonSC

        You are crazy. When I imagine you talking, I see foam coming out of your mouth and your eyes looking in opposing directions.

    • dark477

      that makes no sense. all law comes from man every law in America was made by men.

  • James Grimes

    I just did some web surfing about Chris Cuomo’s religious views. It seems that he identifies as Roman Catholic, but many of his views are at home in the agnostic and atheist camps.

    • Gary

      Much like his father and his brother.

    • Fundisi

      Perhaps it is just my imagination, but it seems to me that the comments section of this blog are being overtaken by militant atheists and homosexuals and I fear in another year, there will be virtually no bible believing Christians commenting here. It seems to me that most of the comments here are in responses/replies to people that hate Christ.

      • Paul Hiett

        You incorrectly associate being an atheist with hating Christ. I hate no one, I just don’t believe he was the son of a deity.

        • Fundisi

          It is a difference without any significance. You are militantly against the Christian faith and thus by default are militantly against the founder of that faith – Jesus Christ.

        • Gary

          You are lying. You definitely hate God.

      • James Grimes

        You are correct. This site has been taken over by the depraved. Whenever I attempt to engage another Christian, the hate mongers come out in force and vilify the Christians who are trying to engage in a discussion.

        Unfortunately, some Christians on this site give these people too much credibility. The depraved should not be permitted to monopolize this site. My $.02 worth…

        • Fundisi

          I add my /02 cents worth as well, we are in agreement that agents of spiritual darkness are militantly going after people of faith here and you are right that we give them too much credibility and our time.

          • James Grimes

            Maybe other believers will see our comments here and think about what we are saying.

          • Fundisi

            I hope!

          • James Grimes

            Hey, Spooby is complimenting us.

          • Spoob

            I am a believer and I happen to think you are totally crazy.

          • James Grimes

            Spoob says he’s a believer… but his behavior does not reflect that. Oh well!

  • Mr. Avatar

    According to Madison framer of our constitution and later president, much of our laws including the 3 branches of government came from the bible. The enemies of Christianity have been subverting our laws for a long time incorrectly, shoving anti-god to the point were going to have another revolution and take back our country before god’s judgment allows it to be destroyed.

    • dark477

      got any proof?

  • The Lone Ranger

    In the first place there is no such thing as gay people or gay anything. There is only a lust for sexual perversion which Chris obviously is overcome by . Certainly the evidence is in his argument so how can a pervert marry a pervert ? The only good thing about that is the fact that they can’t produce more perverts these people need help . If you let them marry based on lust all sorts of lusts are going to grow from this perversion it has no end. Oh I know they say they really love each other there again man will do anything to fulfill their lusts it is in his fallen nature to do so . Pray for them ! God bless Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore,

  • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal

    History has shown that any time a nation undermines the nuclear family that nation is doomed to decay from within…Just look at ancient Greece, Rome and on and on one could go with examples from history..

  • Bruce Morrow

    Stand your ground Judge Moore! Don’t bow to the evil agenda of the Federal government.

  • Bruce Morrow

    The people of Alabama voted that marriage consist of one man and one woman. One Federal judge cancels out the will of the people of Alabama.

    • Lemmy Caution

      Yep. Federal judge would have cancelled out the will of the people if they had voted that marriage consisted of only two men or only two women, or only people of the same race.

      It’s called “equal protection under the law”. It’s in the constitution. Give it a look see sometime.

      • Gary

        The only thing the US Constitution requires about marriage is that whatever law there is, it must apply to everyone. The only way to have a marriage law that concerns homosexuals that would be unconstitutional would be if the state prohibited homosexuals from marrying anyone.

        • Lemmy Caution

          Doesn’t matter.

          In a few months SSM will be the law of the land. Legal in all 50. Legal for all.

          Just like the bigots in the 19 60’s who battled equality tooth and nail, you’ll get over it in time. In a year or so you will have trouble remembering why you even cared in the first place.

          • Gary

            I will never get over it. I will continue to fight the evil. If the government legalizes ssm, they will do it without any requirement from the US Constitution.

          • Paul Hiett

            Why fight for something that does absolutely nothing negative to anyone, and yet provides something joyful for so many? It affects you in no way at all, yet it bothers you so much that other would find happiness.

            Isn’t faith in your religion bringing you enough happiness in life?

          • Gary

            But it is negative. It perverts society and makes the government more hostile to moral people. It increased the danger I am in from the government. I do not care in the least about the feelings of perverts.

          • Paul Hiett

            It does nothing of the sort, and that’s nothing more than blind and ignorant fear. Gay marriage affects no one negatively, and any fear you have of the government is of your own creation.

          • Gary

            That is your opinion. So what? Drop dead, and go to Hell.

          • Paul Hiett

            So sad, Gary, to see someone going through life with such hatred towards others for having nothing more than a different opinion about religion. I hope you find happiness somewhere in life.

          • Gary

            I am not going to tolerate people like you. You are evil, and you are a threat to me and my family and friends.

          • Mr. B.

            Not sure I would go quite that far, but it is obvious that Paul here hates Christians. I am not sure why. Maybe he will tell us.

          • Gary

            He hates Christians because he hates God.

          • Paul Hiett

            I don’t hate Christians at all…and certainly not in the way that Gary hates people who don’t follow his exact version of Christianity. I simply don’t believe in the same thing. Not believing in someone’s religion should hardly call for the treatment that people like Gary dish out. Makes me think he’d burn me at the stake the way Christians used to treat atheists.

            My family is all Christian, with two pastors in the family. I was raised Christian, but simply went a different direction. Just because someone holds a different belief/opinion doesn’t make them a bad person.

          • Gary

            You don’t seem to understand that your immorality is a threat to others. You are a bad person. You are trying to pervert society through the law. You are a menace.

          • Paul Hiett

            I served my country proudly. I’ve never been arrested. I don’t do drugs, I don’t commit crimes. I’m as productive a member of society as anyone, and yet you choose to call me evil? A menace? A bad person.

            I think, Gary, you have issues that go much deeper than your simple hatred for anyone who doesn’t follow your religion.

          • Gary

            I don’t hate people simply because they have a different religion than I do. I hate people who try to change the laws and make them immoral.

          • Paul Hiett

            You mean change the laws that disagree with your religion, which, by the way, is anyone who believes in a different religion than you.

          • Gary

            Yes. If you try to change marriage from one man and one woman, you are trying to change the law from what my religion says it should be. And if you succeed, then the law will reflect your beliefs, which are inferior to mine.

          • Paul Hiett

            Exactly my point. You represent a religion that claims tolerance…yet you have to be the most intolerant Christian I’ve ever met.

          • Gary

            God is not tolerant of sin. You have misunderstood what Christianity is about. Christians are not required by God to stand around and be nice while the wicked run things.

          • Paul Hiett

            I think you’re the one who doesn’t understand your own religion.

          • Gary

            Of course. The anti-Christian thinks he knows more about Christianity than Christians do. That’s rich.

          • Paul Hiett

            Considering how much research I’ve done into not only Christianity, but many other religions, I’d say yes, I most certainly do.

          • Gary

            That is just another in the long list of things you are wrong about.

          • Taussig

            Thanks for your service! Army vet here. Dont let these bigots get you down!

          • Fundisi

            It makes them lost! Your family must be all liberal, progressive false Christians.

          • Crono478

            That was me several years ago. I was raised in a Christian family too. I went on my own direction and found nothing wrong with homosexuality. I thought why should we care about who they love? Leave them alone… That was my view until I became saved. My view went 180 degree on this issue. I could not go back to my old lifestyle, not after God opened my eyes to His words.

          • Fundisi

            Just as in ancient Rome and Greece, the tolerance of homosexuality and gay marriage is but one of the very last symptoms of complete moral/spiritual dissolution and gross depravity, a moral/spiritual cancer that comes just before a people are destroyed, they/you are destroying this country and the world. You are hastening God’s judgment.

          • Fundisi

            It is not our happiness, it is that this movement, of which you are an apostle, is destroying souls, leading billions towards hell and out of love for them, Christians are resisting you.

          • Paul Hiett

            It saddens me to see you people so upset with life, despite your professed love of the very man whom you claim said to love your neighbor. Instead, you go through life with hate and intolerance in your heart.

          • Fundisi

            Yes, like God we hate sin, we hate that sin and especially sexual immorality is separating souls from God forever. But it is because we love every lost soul, we do not want anyone to consciously suffer without end because they reject God. You hate gays, you would rather see them in hell than saved and healed and have eternal life with Christ.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, we do not hate gays or want them to go to Hell. I personally don’t believe there exists a Hell to go to, so gays can do whatever they want without having to worry about going there.

            You, however, seem to think gays (whom you claim to love so much) are a bunch of stupid children. Because you believe that they need to be FORCED to stop sinning with the power of the government.

            Gays who wish to get married are adults. They can make their own decisions. They can assume risks (such as the risk of going to Hell). Why can’t you back off and let them make their own decisions, as adults have the right to do? Why do you hate freedom?

          • Fundisi

            You will discover there is a hell and when you do, it will be forever too late to ask for mercy. That is the price your will pay for your arrogance.

            No one is forcing them to stop sinning, they may go and keep sinning, they can even pretend they are married, no Christian can force them to stop. Our responsibility is to warn them and you of the consequences, to hope a few repent and find Christ and healing, but as long as we warn them all, we are doing our duty to God and to them, we will not be responsible for their foolish rejection of the Truth.

          • Spoob

            They aren’t pretending to be married. They ARE married. It’s a legal matter, not a religious one.

          • Mr. B.

            What a load of crap, Paul! YOU are the one hating on Christians here. Tell the truth. If you had your way, everyone would be as unfeeling and hateful as you are. What a sad way to live.

          • Paul Hiett

            Find one instance of me treating anyone like how Gary and Fundisi have treated me…just one. Show me where I’ve been insulting, threatening, and disrespectful. If I have shown hatred, kindly quote my hate filled speech?

          • Gary

            I don’t love you. And I am not going to tolerate you. You are a danger to everyone.

          • Spoob

            I am glad you’re here, this is the same point I have been making. The Christians on this forum are nothing like the Christians I know.

          • Lemmy Caution

            ” If the government legalizes ssm”

            They will. We kind of know this already.

            “they will do it without any requirement from the US Constitution.”

            You will still get over it.

          • Gary

            Bet me.

          • Lemmy Caution

            Ok, you won’t get over it. You’ll cling to your anger and bigotry until death. Oh well.

          • Gary

            Longer than until death. I will eternally be opposed to you, and to who believe as you do.

          • Lemmy Caution

            You do that. Get ready. SSM coming VERY soon. EQUALITY!!

    • Tim Raynor

      It’s because the will of the people voted for a law that is unconstitutional because your law was based on a religious point of view of marriage. That would be against the Establishment Clause and it is exactly why you keep losing the battle and why Federal Judges keep finding it unconstitutional.

    • Paul Hiett

      Jim Crow laws were once supported by the people too, and it took federal judges to overturn them. Tell me again how the “will of the people” is always right?

      • Fundisi

        In my opinion, there is absolutely no comparison between laws based on racism, on immutable characteristics and that of aberrant sexual conduct. Marriage is a right only if the people involved meet the historic as well as the biblical definition of marriage and the state has no right changing that definition to satisfy the extreme political correctness of the Left.

        • Paul Hiett

          Of course you don’t see it that way, because your religion is blinding you to human equality. You think it should be your way or the highway, but not everyone subscribes to your belief system. We should not be ruled by a religion, and our federal government is, fortunately, taking steps to ensure that does not happen.

          I fully support your right to worship as you see fit. I do not support your idea that we should all bend a knee to your religious rules.

          • Fundisi

            No, you hate the Christian faith, you hate it because it opposes the evils you promote and defend. You would FORCE the people to submit to your atheism in every part of their life outside the home, even in the church, because you are an apostle of the State Church of Secular Humanism, which is atheist and socialist. You don’t want religion to have any role in our society, but you demand we all submit to your State religion, we must live under your atheist rule and that is not only hate, it is hypocrisy.

          • Paul Hiett

            So tell me, which religion should everyone be ruled by?

          • Mr. B.

            None. Including your hatred of Christianity that you call atheism.

          • Paul Hiett

            Where did I ever say I hated Christianity?

          • Gary

            If you deny God’s existence, you hate Christianity. Two sides of the same coin.

          • Mr. B.

            Constantly. Why are you so hateful towards Christians?

          • Paul Hiett

            What have I said, specifically, that suggests I hate Christians?

          • Mr. B.

            That you want us gone. That we are stupid and ignorant because we don’t believe in nothing like you do.

          • Mr. B.

            That you want us Christians to go away and “mind our own business” and that this evil is going to happen whether we like it or don’t like it.

          • Fundisi

            Your every word!

          • Fundisi

            NONE! I am not in favor of a theocracy until Christ returns to rule. Yet, people of faith are citizens, they have full rights or they used to anyway, to vote only for people that share their faith and their spiritual/moral values and to work to through them and the ballot box to have our laws reflect those values. Until you atheists through the atheist Democrat Party took control of our country, that was how our nation believed as well. There was no theocracy, no rule by force, but an effort to elect like minded politicians and through them to influence our laws.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          But it does to satisfy the 14th Amendment.

          • Fundisi

            The 14th Amendment cannot force the country to redefine marriage.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Obviously it can. As evidenced by the 37 states that currently allow gay marriage.

  • Alan Robert Springfield

    Mr Moore took Mr Como to school and educated him!

  • Gary

    Trying to convince infidels of their errors seldom works. I spend too much time trying to reason with them. Those of us who believe the Bible will never accept ssm. And we will not stop opposing it, and opposing those who are for it. The legalization of ssm where it is now legal was done mostly by federal judges who have lied about the US Constitution in order to attempt to justify what they were determined to do no matter what is written in the Constitution. The federal courts have proven that they don’t care what the US Constitution says. They are determined to reshape the laws to fit what they want, even if they have to lie about what the Constitution says, or ignore what it says. And their attitude is contributing to the destruction of he country.

    • Lemmy Caution

      “Those of us who believe the Bible will never accept ssm.”

      There are PLENTY of folks who ‘believe in the Bible’ and have no problems with SSM.

      “The federal courts have proven that they don’t care what the US Constitution says.”

      They can read the 14th amendment. Good enough.

      “And their attitude is contributing to the destruction of he country.”

      *eyeroll*

      • Gary

        You are ignorant. And foolish. And on the road to Hell.

        • Lemmy Caution

          That’s called the highway to hell thank you very much.

      • Fundisi

        If they have no problems with homosexuality or SSM, they DO NOT believe God’s Word and they are not Christians – they cannot be, they are atheists. If you truly believe in God, you obey His word, you hold His Word as sacred and perfect in every way, if you doubt His Word, you doubt God and are in your heart an atheist.

        • Lemmy Caution

          “If they have no problems with homosexuality or SSM, they DO NOT believe God’s Word and they are not Christians”

          That’s just like, your opinion, man.

          “If you truly believe in God, you obey His word, you hold His Word as sacred and perfect in every way, if you doubt His Word, you doubt God and are in your heart an atheist.”

          The same “God” who threatens eternal punishment unless you apologize and grovel for being human? You can keep him.

    • James Grimes

      Gary, do you believe this guy? Which bridge did he crawl out from?

  • bflosue

    Moore needs to find himself a nice quiet place to retire and stop trying to keep Alabama in the 19th century.

    • Gary

      Morality belongs in the past??? Unfortunately, you are not alone in that belief.

      • James Grimes

        This represents another example of a depraved lifestyle if he really believes what he says.

        • Gary

          It is the same philosophy of all the supporters of homosexuals and ssm.

      • dark477

        your morality does.

        • Gary

          My morality is learned from God, which is the only morality that exists. However much you may want to, God will not allow you to define good and evil.

          • dark477

            even been doing for thousands of years and we’ll keep doing long after your god is nothing but a bad memory.

          • Gary

            You will soon be a bad memory. But you will quickly be forgotten.

          • dark477

            So will you

          • Gary

            We’ll see. Or I will. When you’re gone you will not see anything. It is dark in Hell.

          • James Grimes

            As if dark477 is a shining example of what a moral person is… Haha.

      • Paul Hiett

        The funny thing is, you still morality comes from the Bible.

        • Gary

          Morality comes from God. He defines what is good and evil. But the Bible does record the things God requires of us.

          • Paul Hiett

            Morals have existed in societies around the world long before Christianity ever came about.

          • Gary

            True. Morals were revealed by God long before Christ was here.

          • Paul Hiett

            Absolutely…except for those places where “God” was unheard of, which, as you know, was the rest of the world.

          • Gary

            God’s Law exists everywhere, even where there are no people.

        • Gary

          But if you are right, and God does not exist, then neither does good and evil.

          • Paul Hiett

            Good and evil are merely words man made up to describe things he doesn’t like.

          • Gary

            Then I can expect you will make no further reference to either one. And you will have no reason to object if someone takes your property or your life. If there is no good or evil, no right or wrong, then all actions have to be considered equal.

          • Paul Hiett

            And you’d be entirely wrong, but I don’t expect you to understand why. You’re too blinded by your Christian colored glasses to accept any truth outside of your book.

          • Gary

            Then explain to why morality is real if it is what you say it is. I’d like to see you do that.

    • BarkingDawg

      19th century? How dare you imply that Alabama exists in the modern decadence of the 19th century. You should be burned at the stake for speaking such heresy.

  • gregkliebigsr

    WOW; WHAT A SPIRIT OF DEFIANCE AND TOTAL ARROGANCE !
    John 14: 6. Jesus saith unto him, I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
    ———-
    John 1: 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2. The same was in the beginning with God.
    14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    Matthew 28: 18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
    19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
    20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
    OBEY YESHUA!! HEAR , YE HIM!!

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    The CNN anchor is wrong. USA got everything good and noble only from the Holy Bible, the Church, and the Christian British. Mankind did not know equality existed until the Holy Bible taught so.

    • BarkingDawg

      You have some strange ideas, grace.

      Which version or translation is definitive? There are lots of them, you know.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV. The English language has matchless amount of various Bible translations, but the content is the same for all scholarly honest works. Get one study Bible and start reading. You’ll realize America is nothing comparing to the Holy Bible.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        It’s so sad to see today’s Americans mocking and rejecting Christianity. Well-fed, rotten and ungrateful kids from a good family attacking the most excellent parents. Typical.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    USA’s inclination to immorality led it to hate everything righteous, and now it has created a world where abnormally immoral humans persecute normal humans. What a pathetic culture. Democracy is a moral chaos without God’s Word; the fallen USA proved it.

  • BarkingDawg

    Moore is wrong. There is and always has been a clear separation of church and state in this country. The statements in the DoI are not law.

    • Gary

      If rights come from men, then they cannot be inalienable. Anything given by men can be taken away by men.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        No, you are wrong. Liberty and equality and justice are given by God. Man is a born-criminal; that’s why maniknd needs the Holy Bible. Those who possess the Holy Bible alone can get literacy and defeat the villains, tyrants, and slave owners and obtain freedom and justice.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      Separation of Church and State = Separation of Conscience and Man.
      Christian Americans of yesteryears had no idea how crazy Sodomic the USA would become later.

  • Dr. Profound

    Actually natural law, for freedom, against murder, does come from God. The Constitution merely affirms natural law.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      Where does the natural law come from?

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Separation of Church and State = Separation of Conscience and Man.
    Christian Americans of yesteryears had no idea how crazy Sodomic the USA would become later.

  • jcrosby35

    God holds the power of the law and thus raises up nations and takes down nations.
    The USA is turning against Israel and perversion reigns.
    Judgment is coming like you have not seen.
    The gospel has been preached in every nation and people have made their choice to serve the Lord or to serve their fleshly desires in the world
    Tribulations and the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse stand ready for the commands of the Lord as He opens the seals.
    Are you ready?

  • Brenda Golden

    Where does this person think our laws are based in? Meanings of words don’t change with time. Cuomo wants them to change, but it is people that change. Just because a liberal wants it doesn’t make it a good thing. Just because you change man’s law doesn’t make it sanctified by God and that is what is being pushed. The discrimination is against the Church and Christians. But that is okay with Liberals, that is their intention anyway.

  • Doug Indeap

    While some, like Moore, draw meaning from the variously phrased references to god(s) in the Declaration of Independence (references that could mean any number of things, some beyond or different than the Christian idea of God) and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is largely baseless. Important as the Declaration is in our history, it did not operate to bring about independence (that required winning a war), nor did it found a government, nor did it even create any law (contrary to what Moore asserted and Cuomo assumed), and it certainly did not say or do anything that somehow dictated the meaning of a Constitution adopted twelve years later. The colonists issued the Declaration not to do any of that, but rather to politically explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Nothing in the Constitution depends on anything said in the Declaration. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies. Nor could it even if it purported to do so. Once independent, the people of the former colonies were free to choose whether to form a collective government at all and, if so, whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not somehow limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take its words as inspiration and guidance if, and to the extent, they chose–or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished–or, as they ultimately chose, a government founded on the power of the people (not a deity) and separated from religion.

    • BarkingDawg

      Well said!

    • Gary

      Any right that is inalienable must come from God. Rights granted by men can be withdrawn by men.

  • Angel Nova

    Marriage is between a man and a woman and no cuomo can change that no matter what.

  • James Rizzuti

    Bravo, Judge Moore.

  • Harry Oh!

    Truth and laws are subjective based on fallible human reasoning according to liberals nuts like this guy. However, it does not change reality and to force or create something from scratch is dangerous and potentially very evil.

  • Bill Kleinsturn

    Moore knows damn well that the Declaration of Independence is not the basis for United States law. It may have been the inspiration and call to action, but the founding document is the Constitution. Nowhere in it are gays restricted from having equal rights.

  • rastifan